Interim order in an appeal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Registry to list a stay application. Parties directed to maintain status quo over four properties and not to create third-party rights pending reply to the appeal.
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 MONEYLAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI
FPA-PMLA-1748/DLI/2017
Sh. Mridula Kapur … Appellant Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellant : Shri Harsh K. Sharma, Advocate For the respondent : Shri A.K. Tripathi, Adocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER
ORDER 06.07.2017
FPA-PMLA-1748/DLI/2017
The fresh appeal has been filed under section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the order dated 17.03.2017 by the appellant. Issue notice to the respondent. Mr. A.K. Tripathi, Advocate accepts the notice on behalf of the respondent. He seeks time to file the reply. Let the reply be filed within four weeks and rejoinder, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has also filed an application for stay which is not listed; however, photo copy was shown to us. As far as the original application is concerned, the registry is directed to list the same on or before the next date of hearing. In view of the averment made in the appeal, the counsel for the appellant is pressing for interim order. His submission is that notice under section 8(4) has already been received; there is an apprehension that the respondent may FPA-PMLA-1748/DLI/2017 Page 1 of 3
take the physical possession of the properties owned by the appellant who has already been acquitted by the Special Court. The counsel for the respondent seeks time to file the reply has he has already received the copy thereof. Let the reply be filed within four weeks and rejoinder four weeks thereafter.
The counsel for the appellant has submits that the interim order directing the respondent to take the possession owned by the appellant who has been acquitted. Interim order in respect of immovable property, the
details of the said properties are given as under:
| S.No. | Description of the Property/Bank Accounts |
Owners Name |
Date/Year of Purchase |
Value in INR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4. | Office Space 407/A, Unitech, Gurgaon |
Anand Kumar and Mr Kapur Each) |
Kr. HUF idula (Half |
Conveyance deed 14.09.2004 |
24,89,842 |
| 6. | Office Nos. 408 A, Vatika Towers, Gurgaon |
Mridula Kapur |
Builder Buyer Agreement dated 21.06.2004 |
9,32,125 | |
| 8. | Plot No. 264, Sector- 52, Gurgaon |
Mridula Kapur |
Vide Permission No. 5851 dated 24.07.2006. |
13,46,294 | |
| 10. | Cottage No. 10, Devine Golfer, Vill-Sadhora, Mashobra, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. |
Mridula Kapur |
Lease deed dated 27.01.2007 |
38,81,357 |
As far as the property i.e. Office Place 407/A, Unitech, Gurgaon is concerned which is owned by the appellant as well as her husband Shri Anand Kumar Kapur (HUF). The conveyance deed of the said property dated 14th September, 2004. Let the detail reply be field by the respondent. The application for stay which is already been filed be listed by the registry.
In the meanwhile, both the parties as well as Shri Anand Kumar Kapur (HUF) shall maintain the status quo in respect of the above-referred
FPA-PMLA-1748/DLI/2017
Page 2 of 3
four properties. The appellant and Shri Anand Kumar Kapur (HUF) are also directed not to dispose of or create any third party right in the subject property.
List on 3rd November, 2017.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(G.C. Mishra)
Member
New Delhi, 6th July, 2017
‘K’
FPA-PMLA-1748/DLI/2017
Page 3 of 3
Mridula Kapur
Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi
Manmohan Singh
G.C. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
10 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
