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
04 Nov 2025
15
Min Read
Clean before the Crime? Attachment of Properties Acquired before the Commission of the Scheduled Offence under the PMLA
Can property acquired before a crime be seized under the PMLA? This article examines how Indian courts have interpreted the concept of “proceeds of crime,” balancing enforcement power with constitutional safeguards, and compares global confiscation regimes to determine where the legal line truly lies.
19 May 2025
10
Min Read
No Conflict with the CrPC: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Fair Disclosure in PMLA Cases in Light of Reverse Burden on Accused
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed that accused persons under the PMLA are entitled to access all documents seized or filed with the prosecution, regardless of reliance by the ED. The Court ruled this disclosure is essential to uphold Article 21 and harmonised CrPC procedures with PMLA's special framework, reinforcing procedural fairness even in economic offences involving reverse burden clauses.
![Cover image for the article: [AT-PMLA] Property Attachment Upheld Following Illegal Call Interception at NSE](https://framerusercontent.com/images/VDwMJY6Tzd76BrmiL8jEJgtJHKE.jpg?width=3880&height=5820)
06 Apr 2025
4
Min Read
[AT-PMLA] Property Attachment Upheld Following Illegal Call Interception at NSE
The SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal has upheld the Enforcement Directorate’s attachment of iSec Services’ assets, following findings of unauthorised call interception at NSE. The Tribunal held that the actions amounted to cheating and money laundering, triggering provisions under the IPC and PMLA. The judgment underscores that fraudulent conduct disguised as formal contracts cannot escape penal consequences under Indian law.