Conditional statement to reserve liberty does not waive right to reasoned order on merits.

The Appellants (Raman Singhal and Singlas Retail Pvt. Ltd.) challenged an order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA.

The Tribunal had confirmed the retention of cash seized from Raman Singhal during a PMLA investigation.

The Appellants contended that the Tribunal’s order was "non-speaking" and failed to provide reasons for the retention.

The Respondent (ED) argued that the Appellants had made a concession before the Tribunal not to press the appeal regarding the cash seizure, opting instead to seek liberty to approach the Special Court, and thus a review under Section 35(2)(f) of the PMLA was the only proper remedy.

1. Whether a conditional statement made by the Appellants seeking liberty to approach a Special Court constitutes an unconditional concession that relieves the Appellate Tribunal of its duty to pass a reasoned order.

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

Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), which mandates the Appellate Tribunal to hear and decide appeals, implying a statutory duty to pass reasoned orders.

Principles of Natural Justice, which require reasons as an essential component of adjudicatory fairness.

The procedural principle established in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Jagvir Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), which dictates that if a party claims a statement was wrongly recorded by a court, the primary remedy is a review application before that same court.

The High Court examined the specific language used in the Tribunal’s proceedings, where the Appellants stated that "if" the Tribunal was not inclined to lift the retention, liberty be granted to approach the Special Court.

The Court reasoned that this was a conditional submission to protect the Appellants' rights and did not amount to an unconditional withdrawal or waiver of the claim.

The Court held that even if such a statement is recorded, it does not dispense with the Tribunal's obligation under Section 26 of the PMLA to provide a reasoned, speaking order on the merits of the seizure.

While the Court agreed with the Respondent that errors in recording statements generally require a review petition, it found that in this specific case, the statement itself was not a concession that could legally justify a non-speaking dismissal.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Impugned Orders of the Tribunal, and restored the appeals for a fresh adjudication by the Tribunal, directing the parties to appear on 16.07.2026 whilst leaving all contentions open.