Disposed

FPA-PMLA-1062/JL /2015 of Sukhjit Singh@ Sukkha v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar

ATFP6 Apr 2017FPA-PMLA-1062/JL /2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal held that since the respondent admitted taking possession of the seized vehicle, it is required to comply with the second proviso of Rule 4 of the PMLA Rules, 2013 to get the vehicle valued and deposit equivalent security within ten days to facilitate release.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to value the vehicle and deposit equivalent security within ten days.

FPA-PMLA-1062/JL /2015 of Sukhjit Singh@ Sukkha v/s The Deputy… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3265/JL/2015 (U.H.) MP-PMLA-3266/JL/2015 (Stay) MP-PMLA-2095/JL/2015 (Stay)

¶3

¶4

FPA-PMLA-1062/JL /2015

¶5

Sukhjit Singh@ Sukkha … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar … Respondent

¶6

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶7

For the appellant	: Shri Atul Kumar, Advocate
For the respondent	: Shri S.A. Saud, Advocate
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	: CHAIRMAN
SHRI G.C. MISHRA	: MEMBER

¶8

ORDER 06.04.2017

¶9

MP-PMLA-3266/JL/2015 (Stay)

¶10

This MP is filed on 06^th March, 2017 praying for the stay of operation of impugned order dated 03^rd September, 2015 and operation of letter dated 14^th September, 2015.

¶11

It is averred in para 4 of the said application that, the vehicle in question has been released on Superdari by the learned ASJ, Fatehgarh Saheb, vide order dated 20^th November, 2013 and is therefore under the custody of the court. He has placed the copy of the order dated 20^th November, 2013.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant states that on 21^st March, 2017 i.e. after filing the present application, the respondent has taken into the

¶13

FPA-PMLA-1062/JL/2015

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

custody of the vehicle in question. Reply to the application has not been filed by the respondent.

¶16

Rule 4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirming By The Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013 deals with the manner of taking possession of moveable property. The relevant portion of the said rule is extracted below:-

¶17

4. (1) where the attached property confirmed under sub-Section (3) of Section 8 of the Act is a moveable property, the authorized officer shall take physical possession of such property and deposit it in a warehouse or a storage place.

¶18

(2) Where the attached property confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, is liable to speedy and natural decay or the expense of maintenance is likely to exceed its value, the authorized officer shall sell such property with the leave of the concerned Special Court or Adjudicating Authority, as the case may be and deposit the sale proceeds in the nearest Government Treasury or branch of the State Bank of India or its subsidiaries or in any nationalized bank in fixed deposit and retain the receipt thereof.

¶19

Provided that…………………………………………………..action

¶20

Provided further that where the moveable property is a mode of conveyance of any description, the authorized officer, after obtaining its valuation report from the Motor Licensing Authority or any other authority, as the case may be, may accept and retain the fixed deposit receipt of a nationalized bank equivalent to the value of the moveable property as security in the name of Director of Enforcement and send a report to the Special Court or Adjudicating Authority, as the case may be, for information and appropriate action.

¶21

In this particular case it is an admitted fact that the respondent has already taken possession of the vehicle in question. Therefore, it is incumbent on the part of the respondent Department to comply the procedure provided under the second proviso to get the vehicle valued and place it before this Tribunal for further course of action within ten days so that if the appellant chooses the amount to be deposited to the extent of the valued amount, the appropriate order for release of the said vehicle can be considered.

¶22

FPA-PMLA-1062/JL/2015

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

List on 27^th April, 2017.

¶25

Ordered accordingly. Let the same be done on or before the next

¶26

date.

¶27

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶28

(G.C. Mishra) Member

¶29

New Delhi, 06^th April, 2017

¶30

‘A’

¶31

FPA-PMLA-1062/JL/2015

¶32

Page 3 of 3

FPA-PMLA-1062/JL /2015 of Sukhjit Singh@ Sukkha v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1062/JL /2015 of Sukhjit Singh@ Sukkha v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar

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