Partly allowed

FPA-PMLA-1544/GHY/2016 of Jayanta Kumar Ghosh v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Guwahati

ATFP6 Dec 2016FPA-PMLA-1544/GHY/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal condoned a 17-day delay in filing an appeal under PMLA. It also directed maintenance of status quo regarding an impugned order dated 16.09.2016 concerning the applicant's properties until the next hearing.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 17 days condoned; interim order granting maintenance of status quo on impugned order dated 16.09.2016 passed.

FPA-PMLA-1544/GHY/2016 of Jayanta Kumar Ghosh v/s The Joint… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2016)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-2906/GHY/2016 (Stay) MP-PMLA-2907/GHY/2016 (COD) FPA-PMLA-1544/GHY/2016

¶3

Jayanta Kumar Ghosh … Applicant/Appellant Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Guwahati … Respondent

¶4

… Respondent

¶5

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶6

For the appellant	: Mr. Arunabh Chowdhary, Adv. Mr. Ashish Jha, Advocate Mr. Anupam Siddhartha, Advoate
For the respondent	: Shri Nitesh Rana, Advocate
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	: CHAIRMAN
SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA	: MEMBER
SHRI ANAND KISHORE	: MEMBER

¶7

ORDER 06.12.2016

¶8

MP-PMLA-2907/GHY/2016 (COD)

¶9

This is an application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay

¶10

of 17 days in filing the appeal. The reasons for delay are mentioned in the application. Issue notice to the respondent. The reasons in the application are quite plausible as the appellant’s brother who was assigned the legal work was suffering from Dengue Fever and was advised complete rest resulting in the delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the prayer made in the application is allowed and delay is condoned. The application is disposed of.

¶11

FPA-PMLA-1544/GHY/2016

¶12

Issue notice to the respondent. Mr. Nitesh Rana, Advocate accepts notice and seeks time to file the reply. Reply be filed within six weeks with

¶13

FPA-PMLA-1544/GWY/2016

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

an advance copy to the counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder within four weeks thereafter.

¶16

List on 21^st March, 2017.

¶17

Both the parties are allowed to file their written synopsis strictly as per the pleadings on or before the next date of hearing.

¶18

MP-PMLA-2906/GHY/2016 (Stay)

¶19

Issue notice of the application to the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file the reply. Let the same be filed within six weeks with an advance copy to the counsel for the appellant who may file rejoinder within four weeks thereafter.

¶20

The learned counsel for the appellant is pressing for interim order. He submits that the appellant has a strong prima facie case in his favor. As a matter of fact, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has been discharged from the scheduled offence by the Competent Court vide order dated 9^th October, 2014 passed by the Special Judge, CBI.

¶21

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that as far as the order dated 9^th October, 2014 is concerned, revision petition against the said order is already filed and the same is pending. However, interim order to stay the operation of the impugned order is not passed.

¶22

The learned counsel for the appellant also undertakes that till the next date of hearing the appellant shall not dispose of or create interest of third party right in the said property. Considering the facts and

¶23

FPA-PMLA-146/AHD/2011

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellant has been able to make out a strong prima facie case for granting of interim order.

¶26

Under these circumstances, both the parties are directed to maintain the status quo in relation to the impugned order dated 16^th September, 2016 with regard to the said property till the next date of hearing.

¶27

List on 21^st March, 2017

¶28

Order be given dasti to both sides.

¶29

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶30

(Kaushal Srivastava) Member

¶31

(Anand Kishore) Member

¶32

New Delhi, 6^th December, 2016

¶33

‘s’

¶34

FPA-PMLA-146/AHD/2011

¶35

Page 3 of 3

FPA-PMLA-1544/GHY/2016 of Jayanta Kumar Ghosh v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Guwahati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1544/GHY/2016 of Jayanta Kumar Ghosh v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Guwahati

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