Conditional concession to withdraw appeal does not relieve Tribunal of its obligation to pass reasoned orders.

The Appellants, Raman Singhal and M/s Singlas Retail Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA

During the Tribunal proceedings regarding the seizure of cash by the Directorate of Enforcement, the Appellants stated that if the Tribunal was not inclined to lift the retention of the cash, they should be granted liberty to approach the Special Court

The Tribunal subsequently passed an order confirming the retention.

The Appellants moved the High Court, contending that the Tribunal passed a non-speaking order and misinterpreted their conditional submission as an unconditional concession

The Respondents argued that the Appellants had conceded the point and their only remedy was a review application under Section 35(2)(f) of the PMLA

1. Whether a conditional submission made by a party regarding alternative remedies relieves the Tribunal of its obligation to pass a reasoned order on merits under the PMLA

2. Whether the Appellants were required to file a review petition before the Tribunal instead of an appeal when contesting the interpretation of a recorded statement

The court applied Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), which mandates the Appellate Tribunal to provide reasons for its orders

It acknowledged the Principles of Natural Justice, which require reasoned decisions in quasi-judicial proceedings

Regarding the recording of statements, the Court noted the precedents of Jagvir Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, and Central Bank of India v. Vrajlal Kapurchand Gandhi, which generally dictate that errors in recording court proceedings must be addressed via review before the same court

The Court analyzed the transcript of the concession and determined it was conditional, not absolute. The Appellants had merely requested liberty to move the Special Court if the Tribunal found no merit in their appeal

The Court reasoned that such a statement does not dispense with the Tribunal’s statutory duty under Section 26 of the PMLA to adjudicate the matter on its merits and provide a speaking order

While acknowledging the Respondent's argument that incorrect recording of statements should typically be challenged via review, the Court held that since the statement itself was not an unconditional concession, the Tribunal’s failure to provide reasons constituted a procedural error that justified setting aside the order rather than relegating the parties to a review petition

The Court held that a conditional prayer for liberty does not waive the requirement for a reasoned order.

The appeals were restored to the Appellate Tribunal with directions to decide them afresh on merits, uninfluenced by the previous order, by the next scheduled appearance date of 16.07.2026