BLISS ABODE PVT LTD  Vs ZONAL OFFICE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ORS

W.P.(C) 301/2021 Page 1 of 8
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 11th January, 2021.
+ W.P.(C) 301/2021 & CM APPLs. 774/2021, 775/2021
BLISS ABODE PVT LTD ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Ms. Stuti
Gujral, Mr. Abhinav Sekhri, Mr.
Vishwajeet Bhati, Ms. Ipsita Agarwal,
Mr. Yuvraj Paul & Ms. Priti Verma,
Advocates. (M-9910745870 )
versus
ZONAL OFFICE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
& ORS ….. Respondent s
Through: Mr. Amit Mahajan , CGSC with Mr.
Zoheb Hossain, Spl. Counsel for ED.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done by video conferencing.
2. The Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ
petition seeking two primary reliefs. Firstly, that a copy of order dated 1st
January, 2021 passed under Section 8(3) of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 ( hereinafter ‘PMLA’ ) be supplied to the Petitioner.
Secondly, that the same may not be given effect to for a period of at least 45
days in order to enable the Petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal
under Section 26 of the PMLA.
3. Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, ld. counsel app earing for the Petitioner
submits that it is unfortunate that the authority did not supply a copy of order
dated 1st January, 2021, despite repeated request s and now, phys ical
possession of the property, being 40, Amrita Shergill Marg, New Delhi –
110003, is sought to be taken. He relies upon the following two judgement s in
2021:DHC:112
W.P.(C) 301/2021 Page 2 of 8
support of his submissi on, that the time period for fil ing of an appeal should
be provided in accordance with law before possession of the property can be
taken by the Respondent:
a) Arun Kumar Saha & Anr. v. UOI & Anr. [W.P. (Crl.) 1207/2020,
decided on 5th March, 2020] passed by the Bombay High Court
b) B. Kamalam v. The Joint Director , Directorate of Enforcement &
Anr. [W.P.(C) 27451/2014, decided on 15th Octob er, 2014] passed
by the Madras High Court

4. Mr. Amit Mahaj an, ld. counsel appearing for the Respondents submits
that under Section 8(4) of the PMLA, once the provisional order o f
attachment is confirmed, the a uthorised Officer can take possession of the
property forthwith. As per Rule 5(2) of the Prevention of Mone y Laundering
(Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties confirmed by the
Adjudicating Authority ) Rules, 2013 , only ten days’ notice is liable to be
given before possession of the immovable property is taken by the A uthori sed
Officer . Rule 5(2) of the Rules reads as under:
“5. Manner of taking possession of immovable
property. —
…
(2) Where the immovable property confirmed by the
Adjudicating Authority is in the form of a land,
building, house, flat, etc., and is occupied by the
owner, the authorized officer shall issue a notice of
eviction of ten days so as to prevent the person from
enjoying such property and after issuing of such
notice if the premises is not vacated within the
stipulated time, such occupant shall be evicted and
the possession shall be taken by seeking the
assistance of the local Authorities in terms of
section 54 of the Act;”
2021:DHC:112
W.P.(C) 301/2021 Page 3 of 8

5. Heard. The reliefs sought in this petition are as under:
“In light of the aforementioned facts and
circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction quashing/setting aside Order
believed to be dated 01.01.2021 under Section
8(3) PMLA in OC 1329/2020 , or in the
alternative
B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction to Respondent No. 3 directing it to
forthwith supply a certified copy of all record of
proceedings/Orders in OC 1329/2020, including
Orders/record of proceedings dated 23.12.2020,
30.12.2020 and Order under Section 8(3) PMLA
believed to be dated 01.01.2021; and
C. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction quashing/setting aside/stayi ng
Notice bearing F. No.
ECIR/MBZO -I/04/2020/PVP dated 07.01.2021
issued by Respondent Nos. 1 -2 in ECIR/MBZOI/
04/2020; and
Pass any other order and/or further orders that this
Hon’ble Court may deem to be just, fair and
equitable in the facts and circumst ances of the
case.”

6. On the first aspect of serving of copies of orders passed by the
authority, there can be no doubt that such orders ought to be made readily
available to the parties concerned. The impugned order is stated to have been
passed on 1st January 2021 and the present writ petition was filed on 8th
January 2021. By the time of filing, at best , the Petitioner believe s that the
2021:DHC:112
W.P.(C) 301/2021 Page 4 of 8
order was served on 7th January 2021 and the same came to its knowledge
only on 9th January 2021 . It is only as of this morning that the counsel for the
Petitioner confirms that the order has been finally supplied to the Petitioner.
Such a course of action would not be permissible. Whenever an Adjudicating
Authority or any other officer of the Enforce ment Directorate passes any
order, the said order ought to be made available to the litigants within a
reasonable period of time in order to enable them to avail of their remedies in
accordance with law. Mr. Mahajan, ld. counsel submits that he does not ha ve
instructions from the authority as to when the order was made available. It is,
however , relevant to note here that the order was available to the department
concerned , which is evident from the eviction notice under Section 8(4) of the
PMLA issued to the Petitioner via email addressed by the Assistant Director
(PMLA) ED, Mumbai Zonal Office -I, Mumbai on 7th January, 2021 .
7. A perusal of the Adjudicating Auth ority’s order dated 1st January, 2021
shows that the same records as under:
“CONCLUSIONS:
I have carefully considered the written replies filed
by the Defendants to the Notice to show cause. I
have also considered the rejoinders filed by the
Complainant to the written replies. I have heard the
Counsel for the Defendant at length. I have also
heard the Counsel for the Complainant. I have
taken into account all the relevant materials placed
on record before me.

Considering the material in O.C., the written
replies and rejoinders and the arguments above
referred, I find that the immov able property
provisionally attached by PAO No. 06/2020 dated
09.07.2020 i.e., immovable property to the extent of
Rs. 307 Crore. (approximate value of the property
is Rs. 685 Crore mentioned at page no – 2 of this
2021:DHC:112
W.P.(C) 301/2021 Page 5 of 8
order) is involved in money laundering.

a. I, therefore, hereby confirm the attachment of the
properties made under sub -section (1) of Section 5
of PMLA. I, therefore, order that the said
Attachment shall continue during pendency of the
proceedings relating to any offence under the
prevention of Money -Laundering Act, 2002 before
the Special Court; and become final after an order
of confiscation is passed under Sub -section (5) or
sub-section (7) of section 8 of PMLA by the Special
court.
b. PAO No. 06/2020 dated 09.07.2020 is hereby
confirmed.
c. Hence OC no. 1329/2020 is allowed.

Order is pronounced on 1st January 2021 in the
open court .”

8. Reference is made to Regulation 27 of the Adjudicating Authority
(Procedure) Regulations, 2013 which reads as under:
“27. Copy of order be delivered on date of its
pronouncement. – If the parties or representatives
of the parties remain present on the date of
pronouncement of the order, a cop y of the order, if
ready, shall forthwith be delivered to the parties or
the representatives of the parties present under
their signatures and in that case, it shall not be
necessary to send again the copy of the order to the
parties present.”

9. As per the order of the Adjudicating Authority the order was passed in
open court. If so the same ought to have been served on the Petitioner
forthwith, in terms of Regulation 27, which evidently did not happen . Mr.
Aggarwal, ld. counsel submits that a physical copy of the order was delivered
to the erstwhile address of the Petitioner on 7th January, 2021, of which his
2021:DHC:112
W.P.(C) 301/2021 Page 6 of 8
client acquired knowledge on 9th January, 2021. He also submits that the copy
of the order was e -mailed as of this morning as well. The order is c onfirmed to
have been received by the Petitioner today .
10. Insofar as the second aspect is concerned, i.e., the time that ought to be
provided to the Petitioner for availing of its legal remedies, the ld. Counsel for
the Petitioner has relied upon the de cisions of the Madras High Court and the
Bombay High Court mentioned above. In the decision of B. Kamalam
(supra), the Madras High Court has categorically held that the period
available for appeal under Section 26 (3) of the PMLA ought to be available
to the party concerned, before physical possession is taken over. The relevant
portion of the said judgment is set out below:
“2. Under Section 26(3) of the Act, the petitioner
has a right of appeal to the Tribunal. The limitation
for filing an appeal is 45 days and it has not
expired. However, the first respondent issued a
notice of eviction on 10.10.2014. Therefore, the
petitioner has come up with the above writ petition
challenging the notice of eviction.

3. Heard Mr. A. Mohamed Ismail, learned counsel
for the petitioner. Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned
Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents.

4. The petitioner ha s even taken a demand draft on
10.10.2014 for a sum of Rs.10,000/ – in favour of the
Registrar, Appellate Tribunal for moving an
appeal. The time limit for filing an appeal has not
so far expired. What is provided by Section 26(3) is
a statutory right of appeal. Therefore, such a right
cannot be defeated by dispossessing the petitioner
even before the expiry of the period of limitation .

5. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of to the
following effect:
(i) The petitioner shall file the statutory appeal
2021:DHC:112
W.P.(C) 301/2021 Page 7 of 8
within the period of limitation before the Appellate
Tribunal, along with an application for stay;
(ii) The petitioner is granted time upto 31.12.2014
to get some orders of protection from the Appellate
Tribunal;
(iii) If the petitioner is unable to get any protective
order from the Tribunal on or before 31.12.2014, it
will be open to the first respondent to proceed with
the impugned notice of eviction; and
(iv) However, in case there is any difficulty due to
reasons not attributable to the petitioner, it is open
to the petitioner to come up.

No costs. Consequently, the above MP is closed. ”

11. In Arun Kumar Saha (supra), the Bombay High Court has , in view of
the submission on behalf of the UOI that the period of 10 days mentioned in
the notice of eviction shall begin to run after the expiry of the period of 45
days prescribed for preferring the appeal, recently held that the notice of
eviction wou ld not be implemented for a period of 55 days from the date of
service of the order of confirmation of attachment.
12. Mr. Agarwal , ld. Counsel , however submits that since the order has
now been supplied to the Petitioner, he would not insist on a period of 45 days
or 55 days being provided to the Petitioner. He submits that any reasonable
period may be provided to enable the Petitioner to avail of its appellate
remedy. Mr. Mahajan , ld. counsel, however submits that only a period of ten
days ought to be pr ovided as per the Rules.
13. In view of the submissions made by ld. Counsels for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the present case , 20 days’ time is
granted to the Petitioner to avail of its appellate remedies and physical
possess ion of the immovable property shall not be taken for a period of 20
days from today. The question of law raised is left open.
2021:DHC:112
W.P.(C) 301/2021 Page 8 of 8
14. Further, i n order to avoid such a dispute in future and to ensure fairness
and non -arbitrariness, the Registrar of the Adjudicating Authority under the
PMLA shall ensure that in future, all orders passed by the Adjudicating
Authority, apart from being served in acco rdance with the provisions of the
Act, Rules and Regulations, would also be uploaded on the website of the
Adjudicating Authority within 48 hours from the date of the pronouncement.
The Adjudicating Authority shall also fix a specific date for pronouncemen t
of orders in open Court in terms of Regulation 2 7.
15. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications
are also disposed of. The present order be communicated by the worthy
Registrar General to the Registrar, Adjudicating Authori ty, PMLA on the
email ID – registraraapmla -rev@nic.in for compliance and necessary action.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
JANUARY 11, 2021
Rahul/ T
(Corrected and released on 15th January, 2021. )
2021:DHC:112