FPA-PMLA-1767/MUM/2017 of United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

ATFP10 Jul 2017FPA-PMLA-1767/MUM/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order lists the appeal and application for interim relief. The court granted liberty to the appellant to raise the objection regarding the validity of the notice under Section 8(4) if the respondent attempts to take possession of assets based on a winding-up order.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the appellant to raise the matter before the next date of hearing if possession is taken.

FPA-PMLA-1767/MUM/2017 of United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd. v/s… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3458/MUM/2017 (STAY) FPA-PMLA-1767/MUM/2017

¶3

United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd. … Appellant/Applicant

¶4

Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai … Respondents

¶5

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶6

For the Appellants	:	Mr. Gurukrishna Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sanjay Surenani, Advocate Mr. Munjaal Bhatt, Advocate
For the Respondent	:	Shri Rajeev Awasthi, Advocate
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	:	CHAIRMAN
SHRI ANAND KISHORE	:	MEMBER

¶7

ORDER 10.07.2017

¶8

FPA-PMLA-1767/MUM/2017

¶9

The appeal has been filed under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the order dated 22^nd February, 2017 in O.C. No. 639/2016 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Issue notice. Mr. Rajeev Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent accepts the notice and seeks eight weeks time to file the reply. Let the same be filed with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder six weeks thereafter.

¶10

List the appeal on 29^th November, 2017.

¶11

MP-PMLA-3458/MUM/2017

¶12

Issue notice to the respondent. Mr. Rajeev Awasthi, ld. Counsel for the respondent accepts the notice and seeks time to file the reply. Let the same

¶13

FPA-PMLA-1767/MUM/2017

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

be filed within eight weeks with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder six weeks thereafter.

¶16

List this application along with the appeal on 29^th November, 2017.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the applicant is pressing for the interim order in view of the fact that notice under Section 8(4) dated 30^th June, 2017 has been issued by the respondent received by the appellant on 7^th July, 2017. Mr. Rajeev Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the possession is not likely to be taken in view of the winding up order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka on 7^th February, 2017. We referred the directions made in the Para 212, 213 & 214 which are reproduced here:-

¶18

“212. This winding up order be published in „The Hindu‟ and „Udayavani‟ having circulation in Karnataka in terms of Rule 114 of Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, read with relevant provisions and notice of this order may also be sent t Official Liquidator, Regional Director and the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka, the Respondent- Company itself and the petitioners.

¶19

213. The Official Liquidator is appointed as the Liquidator of the said Company and is further directed to proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Company Court Rules, in pursuance of this Winding Up order.

¶20

214. The Official Liquidator may file a status report within a period of four weeks from today about taking over the control and possession of the assets of the Respondent-Company, UBHL and also about the pending litigation or cases against the Respondent, UBHL at various other Forums/Courts or Tribunals or before this Court, within a period of four weeks.”

¶21

The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Rajeev Awasthi submits that if the possession is taken by the respondent then question of the issuance of notice at this stage under section 8(4) was not necessary. We are not expressing any opinion at present. However, liberty is granted to the

¶22

FPA-PMLA-1767/MUM/2017

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

appellant in case the respondent is trying to take the possession if on the basis of the alleged rightful claim. The liberty is granted to the appellant counsel to mention the matter before the next date of hearing.

¶25

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶26

(Anand Kishore)

¶27

Member

¶28

New Delhi, 10^th July, 2017

¶29

‘AS’

¶30

FPA-PMLA-1767/MUM/2017

¶31

Page 3 of 3

FPA-PMLA-1767/MUM/2017 of United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1767/MUM/2017 of United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd. 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