A Single Bench of the Delhi High Court directed J.C Flowers Asset Reconstruction Private Limited, the petitioner to approach the appellate tribunal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) to claim beneficial interest in the property.
Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is a provision enabling certain entities to file an appeal.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner company challenging the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under thePrevention of Money Laundering Act. The question raised in the petition was whether the Adjudicating Authority consisting of only one technical member can hear the cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002and pass attachment orders.
The Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment inJ Sekar v. Union of India &Ors and the argument is that in the said judgement, the Court has held that functions of a body like the Adjudicating authority are quasi-judicial in nature and have trapping of judicial functions and that such functions can only be decided by a person having legal experience.
The Delhi High Court has already taken the view that under Section 26 of thePrevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, any person aggrieved by an order is entitled to approach the Appellate Tribunal, as held in Sanjay Jain (IN JC) v. Directorate of Enforcement.
The Court of Justice Prathiba M Singh noted that “Accordingly, the opinion of the Court is that the petitioner who claims a beneficial interest in the property ought to approach the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.”
“Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002” the Court concluded.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
