Partly allowed

FPA-PMLA-1669/CHN/2017 of S. Gomathi Shankar v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

ATFP8 Mar 2017FPA-PMLA-1669/CHN/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal granted time for filing replies in the main admission petition. On the stay application, noting conflicting factual assertions about possession of vacant land, the court directed maintenance of status quo and disposed of the stay suit.

What did the court decide?

The stay application directed maintenance of status quo regarding the vacant land. Time granted to file reply to FPA-PMLA-1669/CHN/2017.

FPA-PMLA-1669/CHN/2017 of S. Gomathi Shankar v/s The Deputy… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3259/CHN/2017 (E.H.) MP-PMLA-3199/CHN/2017 (Stay) &

¶3

FPA-PMLA-1669/CHN/2017

¶4

S. Gomathi Shankar … Appellant/Applicant

¶5

Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent

¶6

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶7

For the appellant	:	Shri B. Kumar, Sr. Advocate Shri Naveen Malhotra, Advocate
For the respondent	:	Shri S.K. Sharma, Advocate
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA	: :	CHAIRMAN MEMBER
SHRI ANAND KISHORE	:	MEMBER

¶8

ORDER 08.03.2017

¶9

FPA-PMLA-1669/CHN/2017

¶10

The learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file the reply. Let the same be filed within six weeks with an advance copy to the counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder within four weeks thereafter.

¶11

List on 31^st July, 2017.

¶12

MP-PMLA-3199/CHN/2017 (Stay)

¶13

As far as stay application is concerned, notice under section 8(4) has been issued. The learned counsel for the respondent has made his submission that the possession of the vacant land had already been

¶14

FPA-PMLA-1669/CHN/2017

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

taken, even FD’s has been transferred in the name of the appellant. As far as the transfer of FD’s is concerned, the appellant may take necessary steps by filing the separate application, if so required.

¶17

With regard to the vacant land, the appellant submits that no such possession has been taken, only Board is placed on the land.

¶18

There is difference in the fact position as contended by the two parties. It would be appropriate that they shall maintain the ‘status quo’ in respect of vacant land in question in the pendency of the appeal.

¶19

The stay application is disposed of.

¶20

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶21

(Kaushal Srivastava) Member

¶22

(Anand Kishore) Member

New Delhi,

8^th March, 2017

‘d’

FPA-PMLA-1669/CHN/2017

¶27

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-1669/CHN/2017 of S. Gomathi Shankar v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1669/CHN/2017 of S. Gomathi Shankar v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases