Delhi High Court
P K M Selvam vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 April, 2017
$~86
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 18.04.2017
+ W.P.(C) 3143/2017
P K M SELVAM ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Brijdender Chahar, Senior Advocate with Mr S.Nithin and Ms
Preeti Singh.
For the Respondents : Mr Vikas Mahajan and Mr S.S.Rai for R-1.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
18.04.2017
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner, by the present petition, seeks a direction to the
Adjudicating Authority to grant time to the petitioner to file English
translation of all the Tamil documents in compliance of Regulation 3
of the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013 issued
under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA, 2002).
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms
of Regulation 3 of the said Regulations, all documents have to be in
language either Hindi or English.
3. It is contended that along with the show-cause notice, the
petitioner was served with documents in Tamil language. The
petitioner has already filed a reply, however, in support of the reply,
the petitioner had to rely on certain documents, which are in Tamil
language and number of pages of the documents are approximately
434.
4. It is contended that though the petitioner has filed a reply but
due to paucity of time, the documents in Tamil Language could not be
translated.
5. It is prayed that petitioner be granted three weeks time to
translate the Tamil documents into English language and file the
same.
6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner would not be required to file any additional reply or
documents but only requires time to translate the documents already
filed and file the translations.
7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the show-
cause notice had indicated that if there is any discrepancy in the
documents, the same should be pointed out within five days. It is
submitted that the petitioner has not pointed out to the Adjudicating
Authority any discrepancy in the documents supplied to him.
8. It is further submitted that the proceedings have to be
concluded in a time bound manner.
9. In rejoinder, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is not seeking translation of the documents
furnished to the petitioner along with the show-cause notice but is
only seeking some time to translate the documents filed by the
petitioner along with the reply.
10. Perusal of the show cause notice shows that it stipulates that if
translated copies in English language are not provided, the documents
would not be taken into consideration. If reasonable time were not
granted to the petitioner to translate the documents to English, the
document in Tamil language would be liable to by ignored, which
would prejudice the petitioner. In view thereof, I deem it expedient to
grant two weeks time to the petitioner to translate all the documents in
Tamil Language, filed along with the reply, that the petitioner is
seeking to rely upon into English and submit the same to the
Adjudicating Authority.
11. It is clarified that the petitioner would not be permitted by
virtue of this order to file any additional reply or documents. The
petitioner would be entitled to only file English Translations of the
Tamil Documents already filed.
12. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
13. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the prayer of the
petitioner relating to the application for lifting of the attachment,
which it is stated has not been disposed of by the Adjudicating
Authority. The said application is left for the Adjudicating Authority
to consider and dispose of in accordance with law.
14. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL18, 2017
'Sn'
