Dismissed

FPA-PMLA-1428/COCHIN/2016 of Smt. Priya Suresh v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Cochin

ATFP31 May 2017FPA-PMLA-1428/COCHIN/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal maintained the status quo regarding attached property and directed the respondent not to take coercive steps pending a response to the notice issued under Section 8(4) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

What did the court decide?

Status quo maintained regarding attached property; respondent barred from coercive steps.

FPA-PMLA-1428/COCHIN/2016 of Smt. Priya Suresh v/s The Deputy… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3523/COCHIN/2017 (Stay) In FPA-PMLA-1428/COCHIN/2016

¶3

Smt. Priya Suresh … Appellant/Applicant

¶4

Versus

¶5

The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Cochin

¶6

… Respondent

¶7

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶8

For the Appellant	: Shri Ranjit B. Marar, Advocate Shri Anas Shamnad, Advocate
For the Respondent	: Shri Atul Tripathi, Advocate
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	: CHAIRMAN
SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA	: MEMBER
SHRI ANAND KISHORE	: MEMBER

¶9

ORDER

¶10

31.05.2017

¶11

MP-PMLA-3523/COCHIN/2017 (Stay) & FPA-PMLA-1428/COCHIN/2016

¶12

Fresh application has been filed in view of the notice issued under Section 8(4) of the Prevention of the Money Laundering Act, 2002. Admittedly, an earlier notice was also issued by the respondent. However, no steps were taken by the respondent. There is hardly any justification made out by the respondent in for issue of the present notice, when no action was taken against the appellant in terms of the earlier notice. It is noticed that the present application has been filed by the appellant on the basis of the second notice issued under Section 8(4) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Learned Counsel for the respondent seeks sometime to file the reply and to take the instruction with regard to the earlier notice issued by them where no steps were taken by the respondent.

¶13

List on 14^th August, 2017.

¶14

FPA-PMLA-1428/COCHIN/2016

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

In the meanwhile, ‘status-quo’ shall be maintained by both the parties in relation to the attached property and the Respondent shall not take the coercive steps in view of notice issued under Section 8(4) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Similarly, the appellant shall not dispose or create third party right directly or indirectly pertaining to the said attached

¶17

property.

¶18

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

¶19

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶20

(Kaushal Srivastava) Member

¶21

(Anand Kishore) Member

¶22

New Delhi, 31^st May, 2017

¶23

‘AS’

¶24

FPA-PMLA-1428/COCHIN/2016

¶25

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-1428/COCHIN/2016 of Smt. Priya Suresh v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Cochin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1428/COCHIN/2016 of Smt. Priya Suresh v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Cochin

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