FPA-PMLA-1681/MUM/2017 of Vivek Mathias v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

ATFP21 Mar 2017FPA-PMLA-1681/MUM/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of one application allowing condonation of delay in filing an appeal. In the second matter, it dismissed the request for an immediate interim stay regarding attachment, granting liberty to press the matter while clarifying due process requirements for future possession.

What did the court decide?

Allowance of condonation for delay; liberty granted to press for interim order if threat of possession arises, subject to service of Section 8(4) notice.

FPA-PMLA-1681/MUM/2017 of Vivek Mathias v/s The Deputy Director… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3234/MUM/2017 (U.A) MP-PMLA-3235/MUM/2017 (COD) MP-PMLA-3236/MUM/2017 (Stay)

¶3

¶4

FPA-PMLA-1681/MUM/2017

¶5

Vivek Mathias … Appellant/Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

¶8

… Respondent

¶9

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶10

For the appellant	: Shri Arshdeep Singh, Advocate
For the respondent	: Shri Rajeev Awasthi, Advocate
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	: CHAIRMAN
SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA	: MEMBER
SHRI ANAND KISHORE	: MEMBER

¶11

ORDER

¶12

21.03.2017

¶13

MP-PMLA-3235/MUM/2017 (COD)

¶14

The above mentioned application has been filed for condoning the 8 days delay in filing the Appeal. The prayer is not opposed by the Respondent. In view of the averments made in the application, the prayer is allowed. The application is disposed off.

¶15

FPA-PMLA-1681/MUM/2017

¶16

The fresh Appeal has been filed against the order dated 1^st December, 2016 by the Adjudicating Authority. The main grievance of the Appellant is that despite communication dated 27^th September, 2016 issued to the Joint Director, Mumbai Zonal Office, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai informing that the Appellant has legal interest in Apartment namely, Flat No. 17B & 19B, the Adjudicating Authority failed to issue the notice under Section 8(1) of the Act at the time of confirmation of the attachment. Let the reply be filed within six weeks FPA-PMLA-1681/MUM/2017 Page 1 of 2

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

with an advance copy to the learned Counsel for the Appellant who may file the rejoinder within four weeks thereafter.

¶19

The learned Counsel for the Appellant is pressing for interim order. He submits that even notice under Section 8(4) has not been issued. Mr. Rajeev Awasthi, learned Counsel for the Respondent on instruction made the statement that “in view of the stay granted by Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court including this property, there is no immediate urgency as prayed by the Appellant and even the Department cannot take the possession without issuing 8(4) notice”.

¶20

In view of the statement made by learned Counsel for the Respondent, liberty is granted to the Appellant that in case any threat is there for taking possession, they may approach Tribunal for urgent hearing. We may clarify that if the Respondent intends to take the possession, copy of the notice under Section 8(4) shall also be served to the Appellant. Liberty is granted to the applicant to press the interim order. However, we may clarify that at that time the stay application will be decided on merits.

¶21

List on 7^th August, 2017.

¶22

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶23

(Kaushal Srivastava) Member

¶24

(Anand Kishore)

¶25

Member

¶26

New Delhi, 21^st March, 2017

¶27

„R‟

¶28

FPA-PMLA-1681/MUM/2017

¶29

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-1681/MUM/2017 of Vivek Mathias v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1681/MUM/2017 of Vivek Mathias 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