SRINAGAR, Nov 21: The High Court has upheld the appellate authority’s decision to remand the case related to the attachment of property belonging to Zahoor Shah Wattali back to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), dismissing the appeals filed by Wattali.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar ruled that the authority exercising appellate jurisdiction retains the power to confirm, modify, or set aside an order, and that the power to remand is an inherent part of these appellate functions.
The court observed that the authority’s power to annul or overturn an order includes the authority to remand it, unless such a power is explicitly restricted by statute. The bench held that the appellate tribunal operated within its jurisdiction when it remanded the matter for a fresh examination.
The case concerns M/S Trison Farms and Construction, a private company promoted by Wattali and his family. Wattali was arrested by the National Investigation Agency on allegations of acting as an intermediary for funds received from Pakistan and the Pakistan High Commission and subsequently distributed to individuals involved in separatist activities in Kashmir.
During searches at the residence of Ghulam Mohammad Bhat, the NIA recovered documents indicating that Wattali had allegedly received Rs 1,64,10,000 during 2015–16 from unlawful sources and diverted it to various persons in Kashmir.
On March 11, 2019, the Enforcement Directorate provisionally attached the basement and ground floor of a property located in DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon, registered in Wattali’s name. The NIA later filed a complaint before the Adjudicating Authority, which issued a show-cause notice to the appellants on April 16, 2019. Following their reply in July 2019, the Authority confirmed the attachment under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Wattali challenged the confirmation order before the Appellate Tribunal, which on September 24, 2024, held that the ED had failed to convey its ‘reasons to believe’ to the appellants, rendering the confirmation order unsustainable. The Tribunal set aside the order and sent the matter back for de novo proceedings with directions to issue a fresh notice along with the required reasons.
Wattali then approached the High Court, contending that the Tribunal lacked the authority to remand the matter. The Division Bench rejected this argument, stating that the Tribunal had merely restored the case to the stage at which the Adjudicating Authority issued the confirmation order and that the provisional attachment had not lapsed at that time.
Finding no merit in the appeals, the court dismissed them and vacated all interim orders. It concluded that the Tribunal’s decision to remand the case was valid and would permit a complete and lawful re-examination by the Adjudicating Authority.
