KAVITHA G. PILLAI Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Introduction: An order of the Appellate Tribunal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 'the Act') is challenged in this Appeal. Procedurally, an appeal to this Court lies in sixty days under Section 42 of the Act; the period is extendable by sixty more days -- 120 days in total. The Act casts a burden on the Appellate Tribunal to communicate the order either to the appellant or her authorised agent depending on the method of service.

(2.) Here the order was served on the appellant's counsel. There arose some delay in the appellant's coming to know of it. She filed this appeal taking alternative pleas: 1. There is no delay from the date of her knowledge about the order; 2. If there is delay, it needs to be condoned as there are justifiable reasons. This appeal raises these issues: Has the Tribunal properly served the order on the party? Is there any delay? Does the procedure prescribed in the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Appeal) Rules, 2005 ('the Rules') in conflict with that provided in the principal enactment? Dispute:

(3.) The appellant is the defendant in the Original Complaint No. 308 of 2014 before the adjudicating authority under the Act. Shorn of extraneous particulars, we may observe that initially the adjudicating authority passed an order provisionally attaching the appellant's property -- residential house. Subsequently the order of provisional attachment was confirmed through a final order dated 28/08/2014. Aggrieved, the appellant, invoking Sec. 26 of the Act, filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal in FPAPMLA639/Cochin/2014. On 05/08/2015, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Later, the appellant filed this appeal along with an application to condone the delay if any.