Failure to expressly address written submissions does not violate natural justice where a fair opportunity to be heard was provided.

The Enforcement Directorate provisionally attached bank accounts of JSW Steel Ltd. under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), alleging that amounts retained by the company represented unpaid consideration for iron ore said to have been illegally mined and supplied by Associated Mining Company.

The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the attachment on 9 April 2021.

JSW appealed, contending that the Authority had not considered its written submissions and synopsis and seeking a remand.

On 30 January 2025, the Appellate Tribunal declined to remand the matter, but allowed JSW to argue all issues in the pending appeals.

JSW then challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC.

Whether the Appellate Tribunal’s refusal to remand the matter for alleged non-consideration of written submissions and synopsis violated natural justice.

Whether the writ petitions were maintainable when the statutory appeals remained pending and JSW had been permitted to raise all issues before the Appellate Tribunal.

Sections 5 and 8 of the PMLA provide for provisional attachment and its confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority, while Section 26 provides an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal; ordinarily, a party pursuing that statutory remedy should not bypass it through constitutional jurisdiction absent patent illegality or jurisdictional error.

Natural justice requires a real and effective opportunity to know the case and present a defence, but does not invariably require a personal hearing, separate written submissions, or express discussion of every argument; the decision must nevertheless disclose meaningful consideration of material and substantial contentions.

The Court relied on Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter, which holds that personal hearing is not an automatic incident of natural justice, and referred to Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna and Union of India v. Amrik Singh.

The Court found that JSW had replied to the show-cause notice and had an opportunity to make representations through counsel.

The Adjudicating Authority’s failure to refer expressly to the separately filed synopsis and written submissions did not, by itself, establish that they or the oral arguments had been disregarded or that natural justice had been breached.

Further, the appeals remained pending, and the Tribunal had expressly allowed JSW to raise all factual and legal issues.

In those circumstances, the alleged procedural defect caused no demonstrated prejudice, and the appropriate course was to allow the statutory appellate process to conclude rather than intervene at that stage.

Both petitions were dismissed without costs; pending applications were disposed of.