FPA-PMLA-1363/CHD/2016 of Sunita v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh

ATFP25 Jan 2017FPA-PMLA-1363/CHD/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal listed the appeal for final arguments. On interim basis, it ordered maintenance of status quo regarding the attached residential house and directed both parties to indicate the market rent. The applicant was directed to file essential documents.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance of status quo regarding the attached residential property and direction to indicate market rent.

FPA-PMLA-1363/CHD/2016 of Sunita v/s The Deputy Director… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-2787/CHD/2016 (Stay) MP-PMLA-2599/CHD/2016 (Stay) &

¶3

FPA-PMLA-1363/CHD/2016

¶4

Sunita … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh … Respondent

¶5

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶6

For the appellant : Shri Nitin Malhotra, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Nitesh Rana, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI B.K. BANSAL : MEMBER

¶7

ORDER

¶8

25.01.2017

¶9

FPA-PMLA-1363/CHD/2016

¶10

The pleadings in the above said matters are complete. List this appeal for final arguments on 12^th April, 2017.

¶11

The learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the order dated 12^th July 2016. The relevant operative portion of the order are read as under:

¶12

“ Shri Vinay Malhotra, Advocate learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the irremovable property namely 33A Sarabha Nagar Extension, Phase-3, Ludhiana, attached in this case and in respect of which the notice under section 8(4) of the PMLA has been received is the house in which the appellant along with her husband Shri Satish Kumar (appellant in FPA1364-CHD/2016 which is also listed for hearing today) are staying. It is submitted that both the appellant and her husband are above 60 years of age and are suffering from various ailments and that the family would be seriously prejudiced if they are required to vacate the said property at this stage. He further submitted that the subject property had been purchased in her name by her husband Shri Satish Kumar

¶13

FPA-PMLA-1363/CHD/2016 Page 1 of 3

¶14

out of the sale proceeds of their earlier house purchased in 2005 which was sold in 2015 and according to him, the appellant has a reasonable case on merit also.

¶15

Shri Nitesh Rana, Advocate learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in the proceedings before the lower authority, the appellants have not been able to prove the alleged sale of the earlier house at Rs. 2.60 Cr. It is the department’s case that the subject house is a part of the proceeds of crime generated by Shri Satish Kumar (Appellant in FPA-PMLA-1364/CHD/2016) by obtaining loans from banks, non repayment of the said loans, use of the same for different purposes and so on. He argues that the appellants do not have a good case on merits. He also argued that the PMLA Act envisages that after confirmation of the attachment by the Adjudicating Authority, the property in question is not enjoyed by the concerned persons and accordingly if the Appellate Tribunal is inclined to grant interim relief to the appellant, the same may be subject to payment of market rent for the premises.

¶16

In response to the above Shri Vinay Malhotra, Advocate learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the impugned order apart from the attachment of the subject residential house, their bank accounts and other properties are also attached. The family being aged and in ill-health and their Bank Accounts having also been attached, it will be difficult for them to pay any amount for grant of interim relief.

¶17

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above, by way of interim relief and till the orders on the stay application are passed after filing of reply/rejoinder, both sides are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the subject residential house namely 33A Sarabha Nagar Extension, Phase-3, Ludhiana. The appellants are also directed not to sell, part with or create another third party rights in relation to the said property in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

Both sides are directed to inquire and indicate the market rent of the subject residential premises while filing their reply/rejoinder to the application. The appellants are also directed to file the essential documents relating to the case such as OC, PAO, etc. Show cause notice which were before the lower authority within three weeks along with a copy to the other side. The respondents may also file any other documents which were before the lower authority and on which they wish to rely in the proceedings before the Tribunal within two weeks thereafter with a copy to the other side.”

¶19

The counsel for the respondent submits that when the officer went

¶20

to the premises there was no co-operation on behalf of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant denied the same, the appellant is also present in this Tribunal. Counsel for the respondent states that without

¶21

going to any controversy once again the authorized officer from the respondent will visit on the site to verify the rental value of the said FPA-PMLA-1363/CHD/2016 Page 2 of 3

¶22

property within four weeks from today and file the affidavit after verification. Counsel for the appellant and appellant has no objection. The appellant has assured us that he would provide full-co-operation in this regard.

¶23

In case there is no co-operation on behalf of the appellant this time

¶24

the interim order passed on 12^th July, 2016 shall be vacated.

¶25

List this appeal on 12^th April, 2017.

¶26

(Justice Manmohan Singh)

¶27

Chairman

¶28

(B.K. Bansal) Member

¶29

New Delhi, 25^th January, 2017

¶30

‘d’

¶31

FPA-PMLA-1363/CHD/2016

¶32

Page 3 of 3

FPA-PMLA-1363/CHD/2016 of Sunita v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1363/CHD/2016 of Sunita v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh

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