Disposed

FPA-PMLA-1861/BBS/2017 of Jyotiprakash Joy Prakash v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bu

ATFP9 Aug 2017FPA-PMLA-1861/BBS/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of two appeals under the PMLA. It directed the respondent to file a reply within four weeks regarding condonation of delay. It granted an interim stay on a notice under Section 8(4), directing the appellant to deposit user charges and refrain from alienating property until the parent order is modified.

What did the court decide?

Stay on the operation of notice u/s 8(4); direction to deposit user charges at Rs. 12,000/month; prohibition on sale or creation of third-party rights.

FPA-PMLA-1861/BBS/2017 of Jyotiprakash Joy Prakash v/s The Deputy… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3674/BBS/2017(E.H.) MP-PMLA-3665BBS/2017(COD) MP-PMLA-3666/BBS/2017(Stay) FPA-PMLA-1861/BBS/2017

¶3

Jyotiprakash Joy Prakash … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bu … Respondent No. 1

¶4

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶5

For the appellant : Shri Srisatya Mohanty, Advocate Shri Avijit Patnaik, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam, Adv. CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER

¶6

ORDER 09.08.2017

¶7

FPA-PMLA-1861/BBS/2017 & MP-PMLA-3665BBS/2017(COD)

¶8

A fresh appeal has been filed u/s 26 of the PMLA Act against the order dated 06.04.2017 passed in O.C. No. 678/2017. Alongwith the appeal an application for condonation of delay of 67 days in filing the appeal has been filed. Issue notice to the application. Counsel for the respondent accepts the notice and seeks time to file the reply. Let the same be filed within four weeks who may file the rejoinder within four weeks thereafter.

¶9

List the application for hearing on 11^th January, 2018.

¶10

MP-PMLA-3666/BBS/2017(Stay)

¶11

The learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for interim order in view of the notice u/s 8(4) issued by the respondent on 21^st July, 2017.

¶12

FPA-PMLA-1861/BBS/2017

¶13

Page 1 of 2

¶14

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was in custody, therefore, the appeal could not be filed in time. The statement is made on behalf of the appellant shall not sell and create any third party rights pertaining to the attached property directly or indirectly. It is also admitted that the appellant is receiving rent to the tune of Rs. 12,000/(twelve thousand only) per month from the tenant. The counsel for appellant submits that his client shall deposit the said rent to the respondent from the date of passing the confirmation order within six weeks. Counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent in the meanwhile will verify the market rent and will inform the Tribunal on the next date of hearing.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstance, in the meanwhile we direct to appellant to deposit the user and occupation charges at the rate of 12,000/-(twelve thousand only) per month with the respondent within six weeks from the date of passing impugned order. The appellant shall deposit the user and occupation charges till the order is modified/vacated. The appellant shall also not sell or create any third party rights until further order. The attachment order shall continue.

¶16

Subject to above condition the operation of notice dated 21^st July, 2017 shall remain stayed.

¶17

List on 11^th January, 2018.

¶18

Copy of order be given “ dasti” to both the parties.

¶19

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶20

(G.C. Mishra) Member

¶21

FPA-PMLA-1861/BBS/2017

¶22

New Delhi, 9^th August, 2017 ‘s’

¶23

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-1861/BBS/2017 of Jyotiprakash Joy Prakash v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1861/BBS/2017 of Jyotiprakash Joy Prakash v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bu

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