Disposed

FPA-PMLA-1492/DLI/2016 of Bank of Baroda, Shalimar Branch v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

ATFP4 Nov 2016FPA-PMLA-1492/DLI/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal filed under section 26 PMLA against Adjudicating Authority order. Tribunal stayed demand of disputed amount and directed parties to maintain status quo regarding account operations. Reply due within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Stayed demand of amount; directed parties to maintain status quo regarding contested account operations.

FPA-PMLA-1492/DLI/2016 of Bank of Baroda, Shalimar Branch v/s The… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2016)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-2843/DLI/2016 (Stay) MP-PMLA-2844/DLI/2016 (Exem.) & FPA-PMLA-1492/DLI/2016

¶3

Bank of Baroda, Shalimar Branch … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi … Respondent

¶4

… Respondent

¶5

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶6

For the appellant : Sh. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. N.K. Matta, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER SHRI B.K. BANSAL : MEMBER

¶7

ORDER

¶8

04.11.2016

¶9

MP-PMLA-2843/DLI/2016 (Stay), MP-PMLA-2844/DLI/2016 (Exem.) & FPA-PMLA-1492/DLI/2016

¶10

The appellant has filed the present appeal under section 26 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the order dated 29^th August, 216 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in Original Complaint No. 602/2016. Issue notice to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent accepts the same and it appears from the record that the reply in advance has been filed on 2^nd November, 2016. The copy has also been handed over to the learned counsel for the appellant who seeks some time to file the rejoinder. Rejoinder be filed within four weeks.

¶11

As far as the interim application is concerned, admittedly the order for provisional attachment was passed on 21^st April, 2016 which was confirmed

¶12

FPA-PMLA-1492/DLI/2016

¶13

Page 1 of 2

¶14

on 29^th August, 2016 by way of impugned order. After passing the impugned order, the demand of the amount by way of notice dated 1^st September, 2016 was issued. After small hearing, at this stage, we are of the view that let both the parties shall maintain status quo pertaining to the operation of the account which is the subject matter of dispute.

¶15

Reply, if any, be filed within six weeks by the respondent.

¶16

List on 1^st February, 2017.

¶17

A copy of the order be given ‘dasti’.

¶18

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶19

(G.C. Mishra) Member

¶20

(B.K. Bansal) Member

¶21

New Delhi, 4^th November, 2016.

¶22

‘R’

¶23

FPA-PMLA-1492/DLI/2016

¶24

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-1492/DLI/2016 of Bank of Baroda, Shalimar Branch v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1492/DLI/2016 of Bank of Baroda, Shalimar Branch v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases