RUDs relied upon in the prosecution complaint are relevant and must be considered in attachment proceedings.

The appellants challenged orders dated 23 March 2026 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, Delhi, in their pending PMLA appeals.

The Tribunal had dismissed their applications seeking permission to place on record additional documents, which were the respondent’s own Relied Upon Documents (“RUDs”) filed with its prosecution complaint before the Special Court.

The Tribunal found that no direction had been issued requiring the appellants to file the RUDs and that the applications had been filed casually, without explaining the documents’ relevance or necessity.

The appellants contended that the documents were relevant to determining whether attachment of their properties should continue.

The Directorate of Enforcement opposed the appeals, alleging delay and stating that the applications were filed only when the appeals were listed for final hearing.

The appellants maintained that they had pursued their appeals diligently and that delay in connected matters should not be attributed to them.

Whether the appellants should be permitted to place on record the additional documents constituting the Directorate of Enforcement’s RUDs in the pending PMLA appeals.

Whether the delay in filing the applications justified refusing to take the documents on record, and whether the costs imposed by the Tribunal should be disturbed.

The Court applied the procedural principle that documents relevant to the adjudication of a pending appeal may be taken on record where their consideration is necessary for determining the substantive dispute, particularly when the documents are relied upon by the opposing party itself.

In the context of proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and appeals concerning confirmation or continuation of attachment, the Court treated the respondent’s RUDs as relevant to assessing whether the attachment of the properties should continue during the pendency of the prosecution complaint.

The Court also applied the principle that procedural indulgence granted because of the relevance of documents does not necessarily erase the consequences of belated filing; accordingly, costs imposed for delay could be maintained.

No specific statutory provision or precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the appellants would ordinarily have no incentive to delay adjudication because their properties remained under attachment.

More importantly, the documents sought to be produced were not extraneous materials but the Directorate’s own RUDs filed with its prosecution complaint.

Since those documents could assist the Tribunal in deciding whether the attachment should continue, they were relevant to the determination of the pending appeals.

The Court therefore held that refusal to take them on record was unjustified, notwithstanding the appellants’ delay.

However, because the documents had been within the appellants’ knowledge and possession and were filed only when the appeals were listed for final hearing, the Court considered the costs imposed by the Tribunal to be warranted.

The Tribunal’s orders were set aside to the extent that they refused permission to place the additional documents on record.

The documents already filed by the appellants were directed to be treated as taken on record.

The costs imposed by the Tribunal were upheld and directed to be deposited by the appellants within two weeks with the Appellate Tribunal Forfeited Property Bar Association in the specified bank account.

The appeals were disposed of on these terms, with no separate order as to costs.