Disposed

FPA-PMLA-1717/MUM/2017 of Pratibha R. Kadam v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

ATFP17 Apr 2017FPA-PMLA-1717/MUM/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant challenged an order under PMLA. Tribunal condoned delay in appeal. Regarding stay of attachment of property, Tribunal directed respondents to file reply regarding rental value and granted liberty to appellant to rely on concurrent Bombay High Court order.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing appeal condoned. Liberty granted to appellant to rely on Bombay High Court order.

FPA-PMLA-1717/MUM/2017 of Pratibha R. Kadam v/s The Deputy… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3330/MUM/2017 (E.H.) MP-PMLA-3331/MUM/2017 (Stay) MP-PMLA-3332/MUM/2017 (COD) FPA-PMLA-1717/MUM/2017

¶3

Pratibha R. Kadam … Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

¶6

… Respondent

¶7

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶8

For the appellant : Ms. Tapasya Avasare, Advocate For the respondent : Shri S.A. Saud, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA : MEMBER SHRI ANAND KISHORE : MEMBER

¶9

ORDER

¶10

17.04.2017

¶11

MP-PMLA-3331/MUM/2017 (Stay), MP-PMLA-3332/MUM/2017 (COD) & FPA-PMLA-1717/MUM/2017

¶12

The present appeal has been filed under Section 26 of the PMLA Act 2002 against the order dated 16^th September, 2016 passed in O.C. No. 586/2016.

¶13

Along with the appeal, the appellant has also filed the application for condonation of delay. The detail of the same is mentioned in the application. The prayer is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent. For the reasons stated that the delay is condoned. MP is disposed off i.e. MP-PMLA-3332/MUM/2017.

¶14

After filing the appeal, the appellant has also filed a fresh application being 3331/2017 in view of the receipt of the notice under Section 8(4) of the Act whereby the respondent sought to take the possession of Flat No. 1606, Bhoomi Flora, CST No. 559/1, Raheja Estate, Kulupwadi, Borivali (E), Mumbai-400066.

¶15

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said flat is being used for residential purposes where the appellant is residing with

¶16

FPA-PMLA-1717/MUM/2017

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

her husband and daughter. The appellant undertakes on her behalf as well as on behalf of other family members nor to sell or alienate the property directly or indirectly.

¶19

The counsel for the appellant also states that the appellant’s husband has moved the application before the Bombay High Court for fixing his liability and is intends to pay the same. In view of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the counsel for the respondent may file the reply to this application. In the reply the counsel for the respondent may after verification, also mention how much is the rental value of the said flat so that the appropriate order be passed on merit if necessary.

¶20

Reply to the above mentioned application may be filed within four weeks and the reply to the appeal within six weeks with an advance copy to the counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder in the interim application within four weeks thereafter. The counsel for the appellant will also file the copy of the application which is filed in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. In case any order is passed in the Bombay High Court, liberty is granted to the appellant to mention the matter, so that the appropriate order in the appeal may be considered by this Tribunal.

¶21

Status quo order shall be maintained by both the parties in respect of the flat mentioned in the notice issued under section 8(4) dated 16^th March, 2017.

¶22

List on 29^th August, 2017.

¶23

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

¶24

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶25

(Kaushal Srivastava) Member (Anand Kishore) Member

¶26

New Delhi, 17^th April, 2017. ‘K’ FPA-PMLA-1717/MUM/2017

¶27

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-1717/MUM/2017 of Pratibha R. Kadam v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1717/MUM/2017 of Pratibha R. Kadam 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