IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2020 BETWEEN:

1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT BANGALORE ZONAL OFFICE

3RD FLOOR, B BLOCK, BMTC SHANTHINAGAR TTMC KH ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027.

REPRESENTED BY N ASHA ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M., CGC ADVOCATE)

Digitally AND:

signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K

1. M/S DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PVT LTD Location:

UNIT 502, PRESTIGE MERIDAIN-1, HIGH COURT OF NO.209, M.G.ROAD, KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 02.02.2021 …RESPONDENT (BY Ms. MANASA SUNDARARAMAN, ALONG WITH MS.SUSHMA RAO FOR SRI. GOUTHAM.R.V., ADVOCATES)

THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 42 OF THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT 2002 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.09.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT), NEW DELHI, IN No.MP-PMLA- 4147/BNG/2017 (STAY) AND FPA-PMLA-2120/BNG/2017 (ANNEXURE - A) AND CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE PROVISIONAL ORDER OF ATTACHMENT CASE No.5/2017 IN ECIR No.12/BGZO/2015, DATED 27.02.2017 PASSED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE ORDER OF THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY IN O.C.No.703/2017 DATED 11.10.2017 AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIFS TO THE APPELLANT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

Heard Sri Unni Krishnan, learned counsel for the appellant-Directorate of Enforcement and Smt. Manasa Sundarramen, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present appeal under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'the PML Act') has been preferred against the decision dated 11.09.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal (The Prevention of Money Laundering Act), New Delhi in No.MP-PMLA-4147/BNG/2017 (Stay) & FPA-PMLA-2120/BNG/2017 (Annexure-A). The Adjudicating Authority, vide order dated 11.10.2017, had confirmed the provisional Attachment Order dated 27.02.2017 regarding the properties (in the Form of Mutual Funds and Bank Accounts to the tune of Rs.21,38,66,041/-) of the respondent. The Tribunal has set aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that the Adjudicating Authority has not assigned any reasons much less, any legally cogent reasons while confirming the provisional order of attachment. The Tribunal has also held that the Adjudicating Authority has not applied its independent mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication after considering the reply filed by the respondent to the notice under Section 8(1) of the PML Act. Direction was given to the Adjudicating Authority to hear the matter on all the issues and consider the same, while passing the fresh order on remand.

3. Sri Unni Krishnan, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the PML Tribunal is a creation of the Statute. It exercises limited power as vested in the Tribunal under the PML Act, it does not have any inherent powers, as are vested in the Courts. If a particular power is not vested under the Statute on the Tribunal, it cannot exercise that power.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that under sub-section (4) of Section 26 of the PML Act, the Tribunal has power as Appellate Authority to pass order of confirming, modifying or setting aside the order appealed against, as it deems fit, however, there is no such power of remand vested in the Appellate Tribunal. He further submits that whenever a Statute wanted to confer the power of remand on an Appellate Authority or Tribunal, such a power has to be s