JOINT DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT Vs. RITU KHAITAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 10.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Some necessary facts which are required to be noticed for disposal of this appeal are that the respondents herein had challenged an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "?PMLA "? in short). Another important factor to be noticed is that one of the parties to the proceedings being the husband/father of the respondent (petitioner in writ petition) filed a review petition before the Appellate Tribunal, which is still pending.

(2.) The petitioners in the writ petition had filed an application seeking a direction to the appellants herein to release the jewellery, which was seized during the search operation of 22.09.2014 conducted on the respondents herein. The petitioners/respondents herein sought the release of the jewellery in lieu of security by way of a Fixed Deposit of Rs. 1,23,22,317/- in the case of respondent No. 1 and Rs. 29,64,387/- in the case of respondent No.2. This amount was as per the valuation of the jewellery given by the appellants herein. Mrs. Acharya, learned Additional Solicitor General submits that the filing of a writ petition by two parties and filing of a review petition and getting the matter adjourned sine die is part of a larger device of the parties to delay the matter and even otherwise a single order cannot be split and the parties cannot be permitted to take advantage in the manner which is being sought. Additionally, it is contended before us that there is no provision under the PMLA for return of seized articles, even on furnishing of a security.

(3.) Mr. Kapur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that no prejudice would be caused to the rights of the appellant and all legal issues sought to be raised in the writ petition as also in the review petition as well as rights and contentions of the parties may be kept open. Mr. Kapur also submits that the petitioners (respondents herein) have not sought release of the jewellery unconditionally, but have agreed to protect the rights of the Department by furnishing a Fixed Deposit receipt as per the valuation of the Department. He also relies on Section 9 and 10 of the PMLA in support of his contention that should the appellant succeed, they would be well within their rights to liquidate the amount. It is also contended by Mr. Kapur that since no notice was issued to the respondents herein under Section 17(4) or Section 20 of the Act and also that they were not parties to the adjudicating proceedings, the jewellery could in any case not be retained by the appellants for a period of more than 180 days, as per Section 20(3), which is reproduced below: