‘Large volume of pending cases’: Appoint chairperson, PMLA appellate authority members, Delhi HC tells Centre

The observations were made while hearing a plea challenging the appellate authority’s January 25 order under PMLA that had rejected M/s Gold Croft Properties Ltd’s application seeking transfer of the proceedings to a bench comprising two members as per Section 6(7) of the PMLA.

Section 6(7) states that at any stage of the hearing of any case or matter, if it appears to the chairperson or a member that the case or matter is of such a nature that it ought to be heard by a bench consisting of two members, the case/matter may be transferred by the chairperson or the case may be referred to him for transfer, to such bench as the chairperson may deem fit.

A provisional attachment order was passed by the Enforcement Directorate on September 21, 2022, through which various properties and other assets of the company were attached. While the matter was pending before the appellate authority, the company moved an application seeking transfer to a two-member bench under PMLA.

Perusing Section 6(7), the high court said that only at the “time of hearing in any matter”, if the chairperson or member feels, then the chairperson may assign a two-member bench for hearing of the case. “In the present case, there has been no opinion expressed by the adjudicating authority to the effect that the matter is so complex so as to require a two-member bench,” the high court said, adding that the maintainability of the application moved by the company “could be suspect”.

“In fact, in the opinion of this court, the proceedings under the PMLA Act in general of such a nature that they involve analysis of both accounts and finances. It, therefore, cannot be said that a bench consisting of one member cannot adjudicate the dispute until and unless a special case is made out for transfer to a bench of two members,” the high court said.

The high court also opined that if such pleas are permitted, it may lead to a situation where in every case the concerned parties would move an application “merely to delay proceedings”. The high court noted that “time is of the essence” under the PMLA and decisions in respect of provisional attachments have to be taken within the prescribed time – usually 180 days. The court thereafter held that under such circumstances, the moving of a transfer application like this is nothing but a “delaying tactic”.

The court said that the adjudicating authority has rejected the company’s application and the matter is set for final hearing, taking the view that such an application would not be maintainable. “There are no grounds that have been raised in this case for exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226,” the high court held.