Partly allowed

FPA-PMLA-1512/KOL/2016 of Bipin Kumar Vohra v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata

ATFP22 Sept 2017FPA-PMLA-1512/KOL/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed a stay application directing the respondent to permit the appellant to operate four frozen bank accounts. The court ruled that while this does not hinder further investigation or future attachment of properties, denying access would cause undue hardship as funds are already in the respondent's possession.

What did the court decide?

Appellant allowed to operate the four specified bank accounts; operation shall not hinder further investigation or future attachment of property.

FPA-PMLA-1512/KOL/2016 of Bipin Kumar Vohra v/s The Joint… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3670/KOL/2017 (Misc) MP-PMLA-2853/KOL/2016 (Stay)

¶3

¶4

FPA-PMLA-1512/KOL/2016 Bipin Kumar Vohra … Appellant Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata … Respondent

¶5

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶6

For the appellant : Shri Nitin Sangra, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Vikas Garg, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER

¶7

ORDER 22.09.2017

¶8

MP-PMLA-3670/KOL/2017 (Misc)

¶9

The appellant/applicant has filed an application under Section 26 read with Section 35 of the PMLA, 2002 read with Rule 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Appeal Rules 2005) for seeking a direction to allow the appellant/applicant to operate the accounts mentioned in his application and to pass such further or other orders as may deem fit on

¶10

the grounds stated therein. The relevant account numbers are as below:

¶11

S.No.	Banks Name	Account No.
1.	YES Bank	001790700003404
2.	Royal Bank of Scotland	430258
3.	Indusind Bank	100027175487
4.	Citi Bank	5299998338

¶12

FPA-PMLA-1512/KOL/2016

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

The respondent has filed reply to the said interim application seeking rejection of the application on the grounds stated in their reply.

¶15

We have heard the respective submissions of both the parties on the interim application.

¶16

This Tribunal while considering the similar interim application in MP-PMLA-3275/KOL/2017 in FPA-PMLA/1510/KOL/2016 filed by Bengal India Global Infrastructure Ltd. V/s The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata connected with this appeal allowed the same. The relevant portion of our order is reproduced below:

¶17

“Learned counsel for the respondent submits that though the Demand Drafts for the amount have been prepared by the bank, however, the said amount were not encashed by the respondent in view of the interim order has passed by this Tribunal. We directed that the interim order already granted to modify to the extent that the D.D. already prepared for the entire amount which was lying which have already been in account of S.No. 1,2,5 & 6, the demand drafts be handed over to the respondent, who will enchased the same within two weeks. Once the amount is come to the account, the appellant shall be entitled to operate the said accounts in the same bank.”

¶18

During the course of hearing, Shri Vikas Garg, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that if the application for operation of the accounts is allowed than that should not come in the way of further investigation and attachment of the accounts by the Enforcement of Directorate in the matter.

¶19

We have considered the respective submissions of the parties. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the amount available in the aforesaid accounts have been handed over to the respondent and the same is in their possession which has not been disputed by the appellant.

¶20

Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that if the appellant is not allowed to operate the account then it will cause undue hardship. On the other hand, we find that there will not be any irreparable injury or prejudice to the

¶21

FPA-PMLA-1512/KOL/2016

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

respondent if the account is allowed to be operated by the appellant. There is a prima facie case in favour of appellant. As such we are of the view that the appellant is allowed to operate the bank accounts involved in this appeal.

¶24

However, the operation of the amount shall not come in the way of any further action on the part of the respondent in their further investigation into the matter and also regarding the future attachment of any property including the bank accounts involved herein, in accordance with law. If the bank-draft(s) already prepared in the name of the respondent but the same have not been issued/encash in view of status-quo order, the same is accordingly modified. The respondent would also entitled to withdraw and receive the amount from the account in question if it is lying in the said account as of date.

¶25

List on 22^nd February, 2018.

¶26

The interim application is accordingly disposed of.

¶27

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶28

(G.C. Mishra) Member

¶29

New Delhi, 22^nd September, 2017

¶30

‘A’

¶31

FPA-PMLA-1512/KOL/2016

¶32

Page 3 of 3

FPA-PMLA-1512/KOL/2016 of Bipin Kumar Vohra v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1512/KOL/2016 of Bipin Kumar Vohra v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata

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