In a money laundering matter, the Tribunal listed appeals and an application for property directions for hearing. Pending the hearing, the court fixed both matters for 21st February and ordered maintenance of status quo regarding the property.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI
MP-PMLA-3111/CHN/2017 (Misc) & FPA-PMLA-1629/CHN/2017 Ashwanth Pothy … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
| For the appellant | : Shri Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate Shri E. Omprakash, Advocate Ms. Madhusumita Bora, Advocate Ms. Archana, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For the respondent | : Shri Atul Tripathi, Advocate |
| CORAM | |
| JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH | : CHAIRMAN |
| SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA | : MEMBER |
| SHRI ANAND KISHORE | : MEMBER |
ORDER
07.02.2017
FPA-PMLA-1629/CHN/2017
Appellant has filed the appeal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Issue notice to the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file the reply within six weeks with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder four weeks thereafter.
List the appeal for hearing on 21st February, 2017.
MP-PMLA-3111/CHN/2017 (Misc)
Alongwith the appeal, the appellant has filed the application for passing appropriate directions. The contention of the appellant is that FPA-PMLA-1629/CHN/2017 Page 1 of 3
the appellant has purchased the attached property with the purpose of constructing textile showroom as part of the Appellant’s business. It was purchased by the appellant and his brothers and the same is contiguous to a larger area of the land measuring about 78,000 sq. ft and total area of tracts of land comprises around 65,000 sq. ft. purchased from third parties and 12,945 sq. ft. from one Ms. Dhanlaxmi Sridhar by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 29th February, 2016 for consideration of Rs. 5,30,47,500/-. She is the daughter of one Mr. Sridhar Dhanpal, who is facing criminal prosecution in various matters. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in order to get rid of the dispute, the appellant and his brothers are prepared to deposit the sum of Rs. 5,30,47,500/being the amount paid towards acquiring the subject property with the respondent so that they may do their business peacefully. He further submits that as per the Section 5 notice, the respondent himself in the schedule of the property has fixed the value at Rs. 6,47,25,000/- as per the guideline value of the property Registration Department, Tamil Nadu. He said that in case the Department is satisfied, the appellant will be prepared to pay the said amount itself although the original amount paid to the daughter and mother of the accused was Rs. 5.35 crores. He submits that the appellant representation dated 12th January, 2017 is pending with the respondent and he requests that the same may be considered by the respondent so that the present dispute between the appellant and respondent be closed.
The learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file the reply. He submits that as far as the representation is concerned, he will take the instruction from the Department and reply would be filed within two weeks from today. According to him, market value of the property is 12 crores, the market price suggested by Mr. Garg is denied by the learned counsel for the appellant.
FPA-PMLA-1629/CHN/2017
Page 2 of 3
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that after passing the impugned order, the appellant has received the notice under Section 8(4) and for taking over the same by the respondent. In order to strike the balance at this stage, the appellant is prepared to deposit 50 per cent of total amount of Rs. 5.35 crore as and when required by this Tribunal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the possession has been taken over by the respondent, therefore, the application filed by the appellant does not survive. However, he is not sure as to whether the possession has been taken as a symbolic possession or physical possession has been taken.
List this application be fixed for hearing on 21st February, 2017.
In the meanwhile, both parties shall maintain the Status quo in respect of property in question. The Status quo order is passed subject to the condition that the appellant will not create any third party interest and part with the possession of the suit property till the next date.
Order be given ‘dasti’ to both the parties.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(Kaushal Srivastava) Member
(Anand Kishore) Member
New Delhi, 07th February, 2017 ‘A’
FPA-PMLA-1629/CHN/2017
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application seeking directions regarding property possession survives once possession has been taken over by the respondent.
Ashwanth Pothy
Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai
Manmohan Singh
Kaushal Srivastava
Anand Kishore
As recorded by the court registry
10 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
