Dy. Director, Directorate Of ... vs Rajiv Chanana
2015 Latest Caselaw 314 Del

$~11
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       LPA No.11/2015

        DY. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT..Appellant
                      Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Amit
                               Mahajan, CGSC and Mr. Nitya
                               Sharma, Advs.

                                 Versus

        RAJIV CHANANA                                       ..... Respondent
                     Through:           Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
                                        B. Badrinath & Mr. Abhishek
                                        Dhingra, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

                                      ORDER

%                                    13.01.2015
Caveat No.29/2015

1. Since the learned counsel for the respondent has entered appearance,

caveat stands discharged.

CM No.493/2015 (for exemption)

2. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM No.492/2015 (for condonation of 66 days delay in preferring the appeal)

3. We have heard the counsels for the parties.

4. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal is

condoned.

5. The application stands disposed of.

LPA No.11/2015 & CM No.491/2015 (for stay)

6. This intra court appeal impugns the order dated 19th September, 2014

of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.6293/2014

preferred by the respondent.

7. The said writ petition was preferred impugning the order dated 4 th

February, 2011 of the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of

Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 of attachment of certain immovable

properties and seeking a direction for release of the said properties. The

writ petition came up before the learned Single Judge on 19 th September,

2014, when the counsel for the appellant appeared on advance notice. The

learned Single Judge, after hearing the counsel for the parties, on the very

same day disposed of the writ petition holding that the continued attachment

of the property was unsustainable. However, inspite of such a finding, the

learned Single Judge in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment observed

"In the circumstances, it prima facie appears that the attachment order ought

to be vacated" and finding that the respondent / writ petitioner had filed a

representation before the appellant in this regard and which had not been

disposed of, disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellant to

dispose of the said representation within a period of four weeks.

8. In the circumstances, we at the outset enquired from the learned ASG

appearing for the appellant that since the learned Single Judge inspite of

holding the continued attachment of properties to be unsustainable, has still

qualified the said finding as prima facie, would it not be appropriate for the

appellant to, in compliance with the direction of the learned Single Judge,

pass an order on the representation made by the respondent / writ petitioner.

9. The learned ASG had contended that the learned Single Judge in the

impugned order has returned categorical findings on interpretation of the

provisions of the Act. It is also argued that in other petitions entailing the

same question coming up before the learned Single Judge, the learned

Single Judge is proceeding on the premise that the findings returned in the

impugned order are final. Copy of the order dated 19 th November, 2014 in

W.P.(C) No.7943/2014 in this regard is handed over. It is yet further

contended that the impugned order is being cited as a binding precedent in

other Courts also. It is contended that the interpretation adopted by the

learned Single Judge of the provisions of the Act, is erroneous and that

though the learned Single Judge has taken note of the contention of the

appellant of the amendment of the year 2013 to Section 8 thereof but has not

adjudicated on the said aspect.

10. We find considerable merit in the aforesaid contentions of the learned

ASG.

11. After some hearing, the senior counsel for the respondent / writ

petitioner agrees that the impugned order be set aside and the writ petition

filed by the respondent / writ petitioner as well as this appeal be disposed of

by directing the Appellate Authority under the PMLA to decide the appeal

already preferred by the respondent / writ petitioner against the order

aforesaid of attachment of properties within the time to be fixed by this

Court. It is contended that arguments were heard in the appeal long back

and order is reserved.

12. It is further agreed between the counsels that since considerable time

has lapsed, an opportunity be also given to the parties to make further

arguments, if needed, before the Appellate Authority.

13. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal by setting aside the impugned

order / judgment and by disposing of the writ petition (from which this

appeal arises) filed by the respondent / writ petitioner by directing the

Appellate Authority under PMLA to dispose of the appeal preferred by the

respondent / writ petitioner against the order of attachment within a period

of eight weeks from today. We further direct the parties / counsels to appear

before the Appellate Authority on 20th January, 2015, on which date, the

Appellate Authority may hear further arguments, if any sought to be

addressed by either of the counsels on the merits of the appeal or may fix a

date for such hearing, ensuring that the appeal is disposed of within eight

weeks.

14. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court

Master to the counsels for the parties to enable them to file the same before

the Appellate Authority and be also forthwith forwarded by the Registry of

this Court to the Appellate Authority, to ensure compliance.

No costs.

CHIEF JUSTICE

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

JANUARY 13, 2015/bs