Appellate Tribunal SAFEMA (‘Appellate Tribunal’) in the case of Ara Properties v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement[i] discussed the powers of both the Appellate Tribunal and Special Court while discussing the provisions of ss. 8 and 35 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’).
Facts
The appellants filed an appeal against the provisional attachment order and its subsequent confirmation, which were set aside. They requested the release of the property attached under the provisional attachment order.
The appellants relied on the Appellate Tribunal's decision in Pulkit Garg & Ors. v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement[ii], in which the prayer of release in similar circumstances was granted.
The application was contested on the grounds that the appellants had filed a similar application before the Special Court to release the attached property, thus making the current application subject to res judicata.
Held
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the application on the grounds that the power to release the property lies with the Special Court under s. 8 of the PMLA. This is applicable if the Special Court determines that no money laundering offence has occurred and the property is not involved in money laundering.
While discussing its decision in Pulkit Garg (supra), the Appellate Tribunal observed that s. 8 of the PMLA does not restrict it from ordering the release of property and that the application could be considered under s. 35 of the PMLA.
However, it was observed that the Appellate Tribunal is not granted such powers under the PMLA, and s. 35 of the PMLA solely allows it to regulate its own procedure.
Our Analysis
In this case, the Appellate Tribunal reaffirmed the extent of its powers. The Appellate Tribunal may exercise powers similar to those vested in a civil court as necessary for discharging its functions and has the authority to regulate its own procedure. However, its powers do not extend to substantive reliefs, such as property release, which remain within the purview of the Special Court.
End Notes
[i] [2024] 165 taxmann.com 203 (SAFEMA - New Delhi) dated 25.07.2024.
[ii] FPA-PMLA-2342/DLI/2018 dated 16.03.2023.
Authored by Rosy Gupta, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.
More Insights
2026-04-23
18
min read
Mandatory Pre-Deposit for Appeals in Indirect Tax Laws: A Barrier to Justice?
Mandatory pre-deposit has become a defining feature of indirect tax litigation, balancing revenue protection with access to appellate remedies. While the shift to a fixed statutory framework has improved procedural efficiency, it also raises concerns regarding financial barriers and effective access to justice. This insight examines the legal evolution, judicial interpretation, and practical implications of the regime.
2026-04-20
10
min read
Legal Strategy in Startup Ecosystems: Risk Mitigation and Value Maximisation from Formation to Exit
Legal structuring across the startup lifecycle extends beyond compliance to shape valuation, governance, and investor confidence. From intellectual property protection and entity selection to funding arrangements and exit mechanisms, each stage involves critical legal considerations that determine risk allocation and long-term scalability within a regulated framework.
2026-04-06
5
min read
Minority Exit under S. 66: The Supreme Court on Fairness, Valuation, and the Limits of Judicial Scrutiny
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Pannalal Bhansali v. Bharti Telecom Ltd. clarifies the contours of fairness under Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013. It reinforces a market-based approach to valuation, affirms the permissibility of DLOM, and underscores judicial deference in the absence of oppression, marking a significant shift in minority exit jurisprudence.