FPA-PMLA-1115/MUM/2015 of M/s. Ace Card Infrasol Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

ATFP24 Nov 2016FPA-PMLA-1115/MUM/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal observed that despite previous notice under Section 8(4) of the PMLA, the respondent had not taken possession. No reply was filed by the respondent to the stay application. Consequently, the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding property title and possession until the next hearing.

What did the court decide?

Both parties directed to maintain status quo on title and possession of attached properties till next hearing.

FPA-PMLA-1115/MUM/2015 of M/s. Ace Card Infrasol Pvt. Ltd. v/s… — Property and Title | ATFP (2016)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-2206/MUM/2015 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1115/MUM/2015

¶3

M/s. Ace Card Infrasol Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant/Applicant

¶4

Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai … Respondent

¶5

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶6

For the appellant : Shri Arjun Krishnan, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Neeraj Atri, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI ANAND KISHORE : MEMBER

¶7

ORDER 24.11.2016

¶8

FPA-PMLA-1115/MUM/2015 & MP-PMLA-2206/MUM/2015 (Stay)

¶9

The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 1. The counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 to 7 submits that as separate appeals have been filed by them the counter is not necessary on their behalf. The counsel for the appellant seeks time to file the rejoinder. Let the same be filed within four weeks.

¶10

From the record it appears that respondent no. 2 & 3 are not served. The counsel for the respondent no. 2 & 3 are yet to be served. The cousnel for the appellant submits that they shall serve to them by Registered A.D. Post. He further submits that they will take the necessary steps in any case by Registered A.D. Post. Let him do so accordingly for the service of the said respondents.

¶11

FPA-PMLA-1115/MUM/2015

¶12

Page 1 of 2

¶13

No reply to the stay application has been filed by the respondent no. 1 who is the contesting party. The learned counsel for the appellant is pressing for interim stay. The grounds are mentioned in para no. 1, 2 & 3 in the application. A perusal of the impugned order dated 27^th August, 2015 shows that so far the possession has not been taken by the respondent even inspite of earlier notice issued long ago by the respondent no. 1 under section 8(4) of the PMLA. The respondent did not taken any steps to take the possession.

¶14

The learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 that now the process for taking the possession is under way and the same might not be taken. As no possession has been taken by the respondent despite the notice, both the parties shall maintain the status quo in respect of title of the property and possession of the attached properties till the next date of hearing.

¶15

List on 14^th February, 2017.

¶16

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶17

(Anand Kishore) Member

¶18

New Delhi, 24^th November, 2016

¶19

‘d’

¶20

FPA-PMLA-1115/MUM/2015

¶21

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-1115/MUM/2015 of M/s. Ace Card Infrasol Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1115/MUM/2015 of M/s. Ace Card Infrasol Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases