S. 42 Of PMLA: Bombay High Court Refuses To Condone 132 Days Delay In Filing Appeal By ED

The Bombay High Court has refused to condone the delay of 132 days in filing the appeal by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

The bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has observed that beyond the total period of 120 days as stipulated in Section 42 of the PMLA, 2002, the High Court has no power to condone the delay. Since, the application seeking a condonation of delay is beyond the total period of 120 days, the Application seeking condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed. 

The Applicant/Appellant has filed the appeal under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 by the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, challenging the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. By the order, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondent-Bank against the order of the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Order of the Attachment levied by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Surat.

Since there is a delay in filing the Appeal, the above Interim Application is also filed seeking a condonation of delay. Though in the Interim Application, the period of delay is not mentioned, on the basis of the lists of dates and events tendered to this Court on 9th December 2024, the delay mentioned is 132 days.

The issue raised was whether the Court has the power to condone the delay beyond the total period of 120 days [sixty days being the prescribed period and a further period of sixty days being the grace period] as stipulated in Section 42 of the PMLA, 2002, read with its proviso. 

The court held that after the total period of 120 days as stipulated in Section 42 of the PMLA, 2002, read with its proviso, the High Court would have no power to condone the delay in preferring the Appeal.

Read More: Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging CBDT Notification Restricting Section 80IB (10) Benefit Only To Housing Projects Approved After 1 April 2004 And Before…

Case Details

Case Title: The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement Versus The Branch Manager, The Goa State Co-op Bank Ltd.

Case No.: Interim Application No. 1958 Of 2024 In First Appeal (St.) No. 3056 Of 2024

Date: January 14, 2025

Counsel For Applicant: Adv. Ashish Chavan a/w Yash Palan

Juris Hour Team
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

No Service Tax On Discount Towards Sale Of Goods: CESTAT

The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)…

Non-Filing Of Monthly Return Amounts To Wilful Suppression Of Fact Under GST: Andhra Pradesh High Court Uphold Penalty

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the penalty and held that…

Liquidator Should Be Issued Notice And Made To Participate In Income Tax Reassessment Proceedings: Patna High Court

Recently, Patna High Court has ruled that the Liquidator should be noticed…

Denying GST ITC On Advance Receipts Would Create Inconsistency And Disrupt Harmonious Functioning Of GST Provisions, Rules Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has ruled that denying (Input Tax Credit) ITC…