The Tribunal noted that the appeal challenges an impugned order passed without a notice against the appellant. Since the appellant has approached the High Court for similar relief, the Tribunal deferred consideration of the notice issue and listed the matter for a future hearing.
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-3236/MUM/2017 (Stay) &
FPA-PMLA-1681/MUM/2017
Vivek Mathias … Appellant/Applicant
Versus
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai & Ors. … Respondents
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
| For the Appellant | : | Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Arshdeep Singh, Advocate Ms. Meena Venugopal, Advocate Mr. Manish Jha, Advocate Mr. Akshat Gupta, Advocate |
|---|---|---|
| For the Respondent | : | Mr. Rajeev Awasthi, Advocate |
| CORAM | ||
| JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH | : | CHAIRMAN |
| SHRI ANAND KISHORE | : | MEMBER |
ORDER
14.11.2017
FPA-PMLA-1681/MUM/2017
Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant at no point of time was the Director, employee or shareholder of the company, or any connection with the seller namely M/s. Kingfisher Airlines Limited (Respondent No. 2) and M/s. United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd. (Respondent No. 5). His next submission is that the impugned order has been passed contrary to the proviso of the Section 8(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
In support of his submissions, he has referred to the order dated 27th September, 2016, which is available at Page No. 448 of the Volume III. He states that in the absence of issuance of any notice to the appellant, the impugned order against the appellant could not have been passed. On the other hand, Mr. Rajeev Awasthi, learned counsel for the
FPA-PMLA-1681/MUM/2017
Page 1 of 2
respondent states that no notice was required as the Provisional Order in the above said matter was passed on June, 2016.
Admittedly, the impugned order was passed subsequent to the letter dated 27th September, 2016. The Adjudicating Authority did not issue the notice to the appellant as alleged. This aspect will be considered on the next date of hearing.
As far as the relief sought by the appellant in the present appeal, after small hearing it has been informed by the learned counsels for both the parties that the appellant has moved the application before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka seeking certain directions including the relief to register the sale deed in favour of the appellant.
Under these circumstances, list this appeal on 13th February, 2018.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(Anand Kishore)
Member
New Delhi, 14th November, 2017
‘AS’
FPA-PMLA-1681/MUM/2017
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Adjudicating Authority was required to issue a notice before passing the impugned order.
What relief to grant given that the appellant has approached the High Court for similar directions.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vivek Mathias
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai
Manmohan Singh
Anand Kishore
As recorded by the court registry
11 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
