The High Court lacks authority to condone delays exceeding 120 days under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

ORDER :

1. By this application, the applicant has prayed for condoning the delay of 220 days caused in preferring the appeal under section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2002") against the order dated 20.05.2024 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) passed by the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Tribunal") .

2. Mr.Vishal Dave, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant was appointed as a Liquidator of M/s. Mekaster Engineering Limited. It is next submitted that order dated 19.09.2018 was passed by the adjudicating authority in Original Application no.196 of 2018 permitting the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement to retain the documents and freeze the assets and an amount of Rs.4,04,98,451/- was frozen and hence being aggrieved M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the HPCL") had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal wherein, applicant was joined as respondent no. 7. It is submitted that the applicant is aggrieved by the impugned order considering the fact that the amount, if is allowed to remain frozen with the enforcement directorate, the applicant would not be able to utilize the same and pay to the creditors, it being public money.

2.1 It is submitted that on 22.07.2024, in the 25^th Stakeholders’ Consultation Committee Meeting, the applicant informed the creditors of the status of the impugned order and the legality and validity was discussed and its effect as HPCL was directed to pay an amount of Rs.3.59 crores to the Enforcement Directorate. It is submitted that 26^th Stakeholders’ Consultation Committee Meeting was convened on 22.11.2024 wherein, the issue of recovery of amount was discussed and deliberated. It is submitted that the matter was also discussed about the forum before which the order could be challenged and ultimately, it was decided that the order needs to be challenged before the High Court of Gujarat and not the Delhi High Court. Thereafter, the certified copy of judgment was applied on 05.12.2024 which was received on 09.01.2025. Subsequent thereto, in the 27^th Stakeholders’ Consultation Committee Meeting, the applicant had informed the creditors that it is in the process of preparing, finalizing and filing the appeal shortly. After taking necessary steps, the appeal came to be filed on 24.02.2025. In the process there occurred a delay of 220 days. It is submitted that the same may kindly be condoned; however, it is fairly conceded that considering the language contained in section 42 of the Act of 2002, beyond the period of limitation of 120 days, the delay cannot be condoned.

2.2 It is submitted that the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India through Assistant Director vs. Mansukh Shah HUF in R/Civil Application (for condonation of delay) No. 1423 of 2020, the Division Bench, has dismissed the application and the delay was not condoned. The said order, is subject matter of challenge before the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 20385-20392 of 2024 and the Apex Court, has been kind enough to issue notice. It is therefore urged that hearing of the captioned application, be deferred. In alternative, it is submitted that the applicant be permitted to file an application afresh after the decision by the Apex Court in the said Special Leave to Appeal.

3. Heard Mr.Vishal Dave, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant. Perused and considered the documents available on r