- Case
- THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT v. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE GOA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. (Bombay High Court, 14-01-2025)
- Law
- Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, Limitation Act, National Investigation Agency Act.
Facts: The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, filed an appeal challenging the Appellate Tribunal's order that had allowed the Respondent-Bank's appeal against the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of a provisional attachment order. There was a delay of 132 days in filing the appeal. The appellant initially filed an appeal in the Gujarat High Court, which was later withdrawn to file in the Bombay High Court due to jurisdictional issues.
Procedural Posture: The case is before the Bombay High Court on an Interim Application in a First Appeal, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order of the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The primary issue is whether the High Court has the power to condone the delay beyond the 120-day limit stipulated in Section 42 of the PMLA.
Issue: Does Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, expressly or impliedly exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, thereby precluding the High Court from condoning delays exceeding 120 days in filing appeals?
Holding: The Bombay High Court held that Section 42 of the PMLA, 2002, expressly excludes the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, the High Court does not have the power to condone delays beyond the total period of 120 days stipulated in Section 42.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the proviso to Section 42 of the PMLA, which allows for a further period "not exceeding sixty days" to file an appeal if sufficient cause is shown, would be rendered meaningless if Section 5 of the Limitation Act were applicable. The court stated, "The words used in the proviso to Section 42 'within a further period not exceeding sixty days' clearly therefore exclude the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963." The court distinguished its earlier decision in Faizal Hasamali Mirza alias Kasib Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, noting that the language of Section 21 of the NIA Act (National Investigation Agency Act, 2008) was materially different from Section 42 of the PMLA and involved considerations of Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life and liberty). The court also noted that the appellant was already late in approaching the Gujarat High Court, and approaching the wrong forum does not reset the limitation period.
