Disposed

FPA-PMLA-1689/CHN/2017 of Shri S. Dilliraj v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

ATFP8 Mar 2017FPA-PMLA-1689/CHN/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal noted time was sought by the respondent for filing reply to an appeal under section 26 PMLA and listed it for final hearing. Regarding a stay application, the tribunal stayed the operation of the notice under section 8(4) regarding immovable properties pending full consideration of asset valuation details by the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Reply to appeal to be filed within six weeks. Stay on the operation of the notice under section 8(4) regarding immovable properties pending further consideration.

FPA-PMLA-1689/CHN/2017 of Shri S. Dilliraj v/s The Deputy… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3263/CHN/2017 (E.H.) MP-PMLA-3253/CHN/2017 (Stay) &

¶3

FPA-PMLA-1689/CHN/2017

¶4

Shri S. Dilliraj … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent

¶5

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶6

For the appellant : Shri B. Kumar, Sr. Advocate Shri Naveen Malhotra, Advocate For the respondent : Shri S.K. Sharma, Advocate

¶7

CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA : MEMBER SHRI ANAND KISHORE : MEMBER

¶8

ORDER 08.03.2017

¶9

FPA-PMLA-1689/CHN/2017

¶10

The appellant has filed the appeal under section 26 of PMLA against

¶11

the order dated 2^nd February, 2017. Notice is issued to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent accepts the notice and 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.

¶12

List the appeal for final hearing on 31^st July, 2017.

¶13

FPA-PMLA-1689/CHN/2017

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

MP-PMLA-3253/CHN/2017 (Stay)

¶16

Issue notice to the learned counsel for the respondent who seeks time to file the reply. The prayer is pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. List this application for consideration on 21^st March, 2017.

¶17

It is a matter of fact that the respondent has issued the notice under section 8(4)of the Act after passing the impugned order. With regard to the FDs is concerned the statement is made on behalf of the respondent that FD’s has been transferred in the name of Enforcement Directorate therefore, we are not inclined to pass the order at this stage without deciding the stay application. The other prayer is made by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per the notice dated 2^nd March, 2017 under section 8(4), the respondent intends to take the possession of the three properties as per the details therein.

¶18

The learned counsel for the appellant does not deny that the properties are rented out to tenants. He agrees to file the affidavit that how much rent is being received by the appellant from the tenants. The learned counsel for the appellant has also informed us that the appellant’s family is residing in Hyderabad in rented accommodation. In the affidavit, the rent the appellant is paying in respect of such premises be also mentioned so that appropriate order be passed. The learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to verify the position and to file the valuation report in respect of market rent of the allotted properties on or before the next date.

¶19

Under these circumstances, list on 21^st March, 2017. Till that time, operation of the notice under section 8(4) with regard to the immovable properties shall remain stayed.

¶20

FPA-PMLA-1689/CHN/2017

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

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

¶23

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶24

(Kaushal Srivastava)

Member

(Anand Kishore)

Member

New Delhi,

8^th March, 2017

‘d’

FPA-PMLA-1689/CHN/2017

¶32

Page 3 of 3

FPA-PMLA-1689/CHN/2017 of Shri S. Dilliraj v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1689/CHN/2017 of Shri S. Dilliraj 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases