Partly allowed

FPA-PMLA-1659/MUM/2017 of Mrs. Veena Kumar Srivastava v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

ATFP21 Mar 2017FPA-PMLA-1659/MUM/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

appellant sought a stay on the operation of a Section 8(4) notice requiring possession of attached property. The Tribunal stayed the notice subject to the appellant depositing the market rent of Rs. 20,000/- pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Stayed the operation of the notice under Section 8(4) subject to the deposit of market rent of Rs. 20,000/- per month pending appeal.

FPA-PMLA-1659/MUM/2017 of Mrs. Veena Kumar Srivastava v/s The… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3181/MUM/2017 (Stay) & FPA-PMLA-1659/MUM/2017

¶3

Mrs. Veena Kumar Srivastava … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai … Respondent

¶4

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶5

For the appellant	:	Shri Johnson K. George, Advocate
For the respondent	:	Shri Nitesh Rana, Advocate Shri Manish Jain, Advocate
For the respondent No. 2	:	Shri P. Ojha, Advocate
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	:	CHAIRMAN
SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA	:	MEMBER
SHRI ANAND KISHORE	:	MEMBER

¶6

ORDER

¶7

21.03.2017

¶8

FPA-PMLA-1659/MUM/2017

¶9

The appellant is the wife of the appellant Mr. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava in FPA-PMLA-1661/MUM/2017. Mrs. Vidhi Kumar who has filed the FPA-PMLA-1660/MUM/2017 is the daughter of Mrs. Veena Kumar and Mr. Pankaj Kumar. Three appeals have been filed against a common impugned order. Issue notice to the respondent. Mr. Nitesh Rana, Advocate accepts the notice on behalf of the respondent. Let the reply be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder four weeks thereafter.

¶10

List the appeal for consideration on 22^nd August, 2017.

¶11

FPA-PMLA-1659/MUM/2017

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

MP-PMLA-3181/MUM/2017 (Stay)

¶14

The learned counsel for the appellant is pressing for interim order with regards to the attached property i.e. Flat No. 903-A & 903-B, A- Wing, Lake Castle CHS Ltd., Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400 076 admeasuring 1769 Sq. ft. area. It is contended by the appellant that a notice under Section 8(4) for taking the possession has been issued by the Respondent after filing the appeal.

¶15

The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Para j on page 7 of the impugned order wherein it is stated that the property is attached under PAO are not proceeds of crime as per the details mentioned in the said para. On the other hand, Mr. Nitesh Rana, Advocate learned counsel for the respondent has referred page 26 of the impugned order where the details of the investigation has been given in order to show that the property attached are proceeds of crime.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the husband and wife, i.e., the present appellant and her husband are residing in the said property and they undertake not to dispose of or alienate the said flat or create any third party directly or indirectly.

¶17

After small submissions, learned counsel for the appellant is agreeable to deposit the sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards value of the rent without prejudice per month from the day of passing the impugned order. He shall continue to deposit the rent of Rs. 20,000/- from 01^st April, 2017 and continue to deposit the same till the appeal is finally decided. As far as arrears for the month of January, February & March, 2017 are concerned, the counsel for the appellant has agreed to deposit the said amount within two months from today. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that he will verify the market rent and inform this Tribunal. As and when report is filed, the same will be considered.

¶18

FPA-PMLA-1659/MUM/2017

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

Subject to the compliance of the above mentioned order, the operation of the notice under Section 8(4) in relation to the flat mentioned above shall

¶21

remain stayed.

¶22

List on 22^nd August, 2017.

¶23

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

¶24

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶25

(Kaushal Srivastava) Member

¶26

(Anand Kishore) Member

¶27

New Delhi,

¶28

21^st March, 2017

¶29

‘A’

¶30

FPA-PMLA-1659/MUM/2017

¶31

Page 3 of 3

FPA-PMLA-1659/MUM/2017 of Mrs. Veena Kumar Srivastava v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1659/MUM/2017 of Mrs. Veena Kumar Srivastava v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

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