Disposed

FPA-PMLA-1719/CHN/2017 of G. Amudha v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

ATFP18 Apr 2017FPA-PMLA-1719/CHN/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under PMLA section 26. Tribunal condones six-month delay with costs. Notice issued to respondent. Prayers for stay of eviction notice pending appeal are granted. Hearing fixed for 21st August, 2017.

What did the court decide?

Delay in appeal condoned on payment of Rs. 10,000. Stay granted on the eviction notice of 28th February, 2017 until the next hearing date of 21st August, 2017.

FPA-PMLA-1719/CHN/2017 of G. Amudha v/s The Joint Director… — Banking and Recovery | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3335/CHN/2017 (Stay) MP-PMLA-3336/CHN/2017 (Misc.) MP-PMLA-3337/CHN/2017 (COD) FPA-PMLA-1719/CHN/2017

¶3

G. Amudha … Appellant Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent

¶4

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶5

For the appellant	: Shri Naveen Malhotra, Advocate
For the respondent	: Ms. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam, Advocate
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	: CHAIRMAN
SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA	: MEMBER
SHRI ANAND KISHORE	: MEMBER

¶6

ORDER 18.04.2017

¶7

FPA-PMLA-1719/CHN/2017, MP-PMLA-3335/CHN/2017 (Stay), MPPMLA-3336/CHN/2017 (Misc.) & MP-PMLA-3337/CHN/2017 (COD)

¶8

Two appellants Shri P. Gowshika Boopathy and Smt. G. Amudha filed the appeal under section 26 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 challenging the order dated 6^th June, 2016. The appeal came up before this Tribunal on 6^th October, 2016 it was observed that in view of the earlier judgement passed by this Tribunal, the said appeal no. FPAPMLA-1403/CHN/2016 treated as filed on behalf of Shri P. Gowshika

¶9

FPA-PMLA-1719/CHN/2017

¶10

Page 1 of 3

¶11

Boopathy. Reply to the said appeal has been filed and the same has been adjourned for 21^st August, 2017.

¶12

In the meanwhile, the present appeal has been filed on behalf of Smt. G. Amudha who was earlier the joint appellant in appeal no. FPAPMLA-1403/CHN/2016. Actually she is the wife of Shri P. Gowshika Boopathy. There is a delay in filing the appeal, in view of the order passed on 6^th October, 2016. The contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent is correct to the stand that the appeal on behalf of Smt. G. Amudha ought to have been filed at an earlier date. However, the same has been filed after expiry of six months. Under these circumstances, subject to the cost of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be paid to the learned counsel for the respondent, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the present appeal as the earlier appeal filed by both the appellants was within the time.

¶13

As far as the present appeal is concerned, issue notice to the respondent. Ms. Shipli Satyapriya Satyam accepts the notice on behalf of the respondent. Let the reply be filed within six weeks with an advance copy to the counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder within four weeks thereafter.

¶14

List this appeal on 21^st August, 2017.

¶15

Alongwith the appeal the appellant has also filed the application for stay of vacation notice dated 28^th February, 2017. The learned counsel for the respondent is opposing the said prayer. She states that the earlier prayer was made in the earlier appeal no. FPA-PMLA1403/CHN/2016 also but where no interim order was passed. As a matter of fact eviction notice was issued on 28^th February, 2017, therefore at the time of having of the earlier appeal, the appellant did not press for interim relief. However, it is also a matter of fact that the said

¶16

FPA-PMLA-1719/CHN/2017

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

notice was challenged by the appellant before the High Court of Judicature of Madras who passed the interim order till today. In the said order it was also observed that first appeal is a matter of statutory right and though there is no provision for stay in the PMLA, inherent power is vested with the Appellate Authority to grant interim order protecting the interest of the parties, pending disposal of the appeal. As mentioned interim order is continued till today as far as fixing of the same. The counsel for the appellant states that the said property is used for residential purposes. Both the appellants undertake not to dispose of attached property or create any third party right, interest in the pendency of the appeal. The said prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent and she prays for fixing some rental amount about the use and occupation charges on the next date of hearing. Reply to the said application be filed by the respondent. In the said amount of rental value of the fact be also mentioned. The said contention will be decided on the next date on merits. As far as this stage is concerned the operation of the eviction notice dated 28^th February, 2017 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

¶19

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

¶20

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶21

(Kaushal Srivastava) Member

¶22

(Anand Kishore) Member

¶23

New Delhi, 18^th April, 2017 ‘d’

¶24

FPA-PMLA-1719/CHN/2017

¶25

Page 3 of 3

FPA-PMLA-1719/CHN/2017 of G. Amudha v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1719/CHN/2017 of G. Amudha v/s The Joint 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