Partly allowed

FPA-PMLA-1356/AHD/2016 of Gujarat Enviro Protection & Infrastructure v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahemdabad

ATFP11 Jan 2017FPA-PMLA-1356/AHD/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application seeking interim stay of a provisional attachment order under Section 35 PMLA was admitted. The Tribunal ordered the release of the remaining unattached land after demarcation of 3.26% and required a stay on the demarcated portion pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Order revoked and modified to release the undisputed balance land while staying the operation on the demarcated 3.26% proportion pending appeal.

FPA-PMLA-1356/AHD/2016 of Gujarat Enviro Protection… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-2928/AHD/2016 (U/S 35) MP-PMLA-2635/AHD/2016 (Stay) MP-PMLA-2637/AHD/2016 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1356/AHD/2016

¶3

Gujarat Enviro Protection & Infrastructure …

¶4

Appellant/Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahemdabad

¶7

Respondent

¶8

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶9

For the appellant	: Shri Suryakant Singh, Advocate Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate
For the respondent	: Shri Neeraj Atri, Advocate
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	: CHAIRMAN
SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA	: MEMBER
SHRI ANAND KISHORE	: MEMBER

¶10

ORDER 11.01.2017

¶11

MP-PMLA-2635/AHD/2016 (Stay)

¶12

The above mentioned application has been filed by the appellant under Section 35 of the PMLA seeking two interim directions. As far as first prayer is concerned admittedly the appellants have preferred the appeal against that order. Along with the appeal, an application dated 29.06.2016 under Section 35 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, seeking stay of the operation of the impugned order has also been filed. The appeal and application are pending before this Hon’ble Tribunal. The respondent No. 1 passed provisional attachment order dated 27.03.2015 by the said provisional attachment order, the respondent No. 1 attached 3.26% i.e. 6691.11 Sq mts thereof, of the total land of the appellant admeasuring 2,05,249 sq. mts. acquired by the appellant during the period 2001 to 2004.

¶13

FPA-PMLA-1356/AHD/2016

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

On 5^th of October, it was confirmed by the parties that in view of the order dated 3^rd August, 2016, the officer of the respondent No. 1 has demarcated the land to the extent of 3.26% of the larger piece of land by the appellant. The request was made by the learned counsel for the appellant at that time that in view of their remaining to the release to the appellant. Time was on the respondent from the Department. When the matter was taken today the learned counsel for the respondent has informed that it is correct that 3.26% of the total land from the amount have been demarcated. Counsel for the appellant undertakes that demarcated land was not disposed of or create third party interest till the disposal of the appeal. As far as the other land is concerned the same be release to the appellant. The counsel for the respondent has no objection for the same the order is passed accordingly. With regard to second prayer of the application filed by the appellant No.1 is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file take the instruction from his client for the said purpose.

¶16

List this matter on 28^th March, 2017.

¶17

Copy of the Order be given ‘ dasti ’ to both the parties.

¶18

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶19

(Kaushal Srivastava) Member

¶20

(Anand Kishore) Member

¶21

New Delhi, 11^th January, 2017. ‘A’

¶22

FPA-PMLA-1356/AHD/2016

¶23

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-1356/AHD/2016 of Gujarat Enviro Protection & Infrastructure v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahemdabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1356/AHD/2016 of Gujarat Enviro Protection & Infrastructure v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahemdabad

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