LPA 167/2023

Page 1 of 12

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 19^th SEPTEMBER, 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

+

LPA 167/2023 & CM APPL. 11254/2023

GOLD CROFT PROPERTIES PVT LTD

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Shekhar

Pathak, Mr. Mukul Malik and Mr.

Pankush Goyal, Advocates.

versus

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr.

Zoheb

Hossain,

Mr.

Ravi

Prakash, Ms. Astu Khandelwal and

Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

JUDGMENT

1.

The Appellant seeks to challenge the Judgment dated 20.02.2023

passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 2191/2023 upholding the

Order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as '

PMLA') disposing of an application filed by the Appellant herein wherein

the Appellant had prayed for deferment of the proceedings before

Adjudicating Authority on the ground that the Bench at that point of time

suffered from ―coram non-judice‖ as no Adjudicating Authority had been

Digitally Signed

By:RAHUL SINGH

Signing Date:21.09.2023

21:04:48

Signature Not Verified

LPA 167/2023

Page 2 of 12

constituted in terms of Section 2 (a) read with Section 6 (1) and (2) of the

PMLA, 2002.

2.

The facts as stated by the Appellant in the writ petition are that the

State Bank of India lodged a complaint on 25.08.2020 alleging that the

accused had committed diversion of funds for the purposes other than the

funds were availed from the State Bank of India. An FIR bearing No.

RC2232022A0002 dated 07.02.2022 was registered by CBI for the

commission of the alleged offence under Section 409, 420 r/w Section 120-

B of IPC, 1860 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

3.

It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant

was

not

named

as

an

accused

in

the

aforesaid

FIR.

The

Respondent/Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered an ECIR bearing No.

ECIR/AMZO/11/2022 dated 15.02.2022 against the Appellant and other

accused persons. A Provisional Attachment Order bearing No.08/2022 dated

21.09.2022 was passed under Section 5(1) of the PMLA, 2002. Original

Complaint bearing No.1824/2022 was filed by the Respondent/Enforcement

Directorate on 19.10.2022 before the Adjudicating Authority for

adjudication of the complaint and for passing Orders by confirming the

Provisional Attachment Order (PAO).

4.

It is also stated by the Petitioner that a chargesheet has been filed by

the CBI with respect to the predicate offence before the Ld. Special Judge,

Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed an

application, from which the instant proceedings arise, before the

Adjudicating Authority contending that:

(1) the quorum of the Adjudicating Authority is not functional

in terms of Section 2 of the PMLA, 2002;

Digitally Signed

By:RAHUL SINGH

Signing Date:21.09.2023

21:04:48

Signature Not Verified

LPA 167/2023

Page 3 of 12

(2) that the Petitioner has not been supplied with a copy of

'Reasons

to

Believe'

by

the

Respondent/Enforcement

Directorate because of which the Provisional Attachment Order

has been passed under Section 5(1) of the PMLA. The said

application was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority by an

Order dated 25.01.2023.

The said Order dated 25.01.2023 was challenged by the Appellant herein by

filing a writ petition i.e., W.P. (C) 2191/2023 before this Court by

contending, inter alia, that (a) the petitioner was not given any hearing in the

application which had been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority vide

Order dated 25.01.2023 which is contrary to the principles of natural justice;

and (b) the said application could not have been heard by the Chairperson

sitting singly as the Bench was not in consonance with the provisions of

PMLA, 2002.The lea