Disposed

FPA-PMLA-1083/DLI/2015 of Sowbhagya Media Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

ATFP21 Aug 2017FPA-PMLA-1083/DLI/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the condonation of delay in filing the restoration application, having found sufficient cause shown, and allowed both parties to file written synopses.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; main appeal listed for hearing on merits.

What the court decided

FPA-PMLA-1083/DLI/2015 of Sowbhagya Media Ltd. v/s The Deputy… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3585/DLI/2017 (Resto.) MP-PMLA-3586/DLI/2017 (COD) &

¶3

In FPA-PMLA-1083/DLI/2015

¶4

Sowbhagya Media Ltd. … Applicant/Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

¶7

… Respondent

¶8

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶9

For the appellant	: Mohd. Wasay Khan, Advocate
For the respondent	: Shri N.K. Matta, Advocate
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	: CHAIRMAN
SHRI G.C. MISHRA	: MEMBER

¶10

ORDER 21.08.2017

¶11

MP-PMLA-3585/DLI/2017 (Resto.) & MP-PMLA-3586/DLI/2017 (COD) & FPA-PMLA-1083/DLI/2015

¶12

The appellant has filed the present appeal against the order dated 1.08.2015 u/s 26 of the PMLA-2002. Alongwith the appeal the appellant has also filed an application for stay i.e. MP-PMLA-2117/DLI/2015.

¶13

In main appeal notice was issued. In the interim application after hearing the conditional order was passed. Operative para of order are read as under:-

¶14

“ 14. At present stage, we are inclined to accept the

¶15

contention of the appellant counsel as no issues is cause if the suggestion given is accepted at this stage. Under these circumstances the appellant is directed without prejudice the appellant shall deposit the sum of Rs. 1.50 crores by way of

¶16

FPA-PMLA-1083/DLI/2015

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

fixed deposit in the name of the respondent within four weeks from today who shall keep the said amount for the period of twelve months and the appellant will renew the same for further period of twelve months if the appeal is not decided within the time. Subject to deposit of said amount the movable and immovable properties in the list on (a), (b) & (d) stands release forthwith. It is clarified that the said deposit without prejudice subject to the final outcome of the appeal. The application is accordingly disposed off.”

¶19

Since the appellant did not comply with the order and no one appeared on the next date i.e. 2^nd March, 2017. The appeal was also dismissed. The net effect was the interim order was also vacated. Thereafter, the appellant has filed an application i.e. MP-PMLA3601/DLI/2017 for restoration of the earlier application i.e. MP-PMLA3585/DLI/2017 for recall of order dated 2^nd March, 2017. The said application was also dismissed on 13^th July, 2017.

¶20

On 13^th July, 2017, the matter was mentioned by the counsel for the appellant for recalling the order however, the counsel for appellant to ask to file the application for recall the order which is filed on the same day which is being no. MP-PMLA-3601/DLI/2017. The said application is listed on 14^th July, 2017. When the order dated 13.07.2017 was recalled. Reply to the application for restoration has been filed by the respondent. Now the main application for restoration of appeal MP-PMLA3585/DLI/2017 and MP-PMLA-3586 for condonation of delay are listed today for disposal.

¶21

The learned counsel for the appellant submits as far as the interim order is concern, the said interim order passed on 16.12.2016 has become infractuous as the possession of the property has been taken by the respondent. At this stage the appellant is not pressing for recall of the said interim order, rather to hear the appeal on merits.

¶22

FPA-PMLA-1083/DLI/2015

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

The counsel for the respondent submits that there is a delay in the filing of application for restoration of appeal. He also submits that the appellant has also filed a W.P. no. 1279/2017 praying for the similar relief.

¶25

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that none of orders passed by this Tribunal was challenged. The appellant has challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act /proceedings conducted before the Adjudicating Authority. As far as said challenge is concern, we are not expressing any opinion, however we are all the view, the appellant has right to argue the appeal on merits in view of grounds mentioned in the application for restoration of appeal. In the said grounds sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Both the applications are disposed of.

¶26

List the main appeal on 9^th February, 2018.

¶27

Both the parties are allowed to file the written synopsis on or before the next date of hearing.

¶28

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶29

(G.C. Mishra) Member

¶30

New Delhi, 21^st August, 2017 ‘s’

¶31

FPA-PMLA-1083/DLI/2015

¶32

Page 3 of 3

FPA-PMLA-1083/DLI/2015 of Sowbhagya Media Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

FPA-PMLA-1083/DLI/2015 of Sowbhagya Media Ltd. 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