FPA-PMLA-1867/AHD/2017 of Sh. Ripal Girishchandra Shah v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmadabad

ATFP9 Aug 2017FPA-PMLA-1867/AHD/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal noted the appellant filed an appeal against an order dated 28th August 2014, accompanied by an application for condonation of 35 months delay. The respondent opposed the delay. The appellant expressed readiness to deposit the purchase value on a pro-rata basis to stay the operation of a Notice under Section 8(4). An adjournment was granted to file a reply on the condonation applicatio

What the court decided

AI extract

FPA-PMLA-1867/AHD/2017 of Sh. Ripal Girishchandra Shah v/s The… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3676/AHD/2017 (U.H.) MP-PMLA-3677/AHD/2017(COD) MP-PMLA-3678/AHD/2017(Stay) FPA-PMLA-1867/AHD/2017

¶3

Sh. Ripal Girishchandra Shah … Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmadabad

¶6

… Respondent

¶7

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶8

For the appellant	: Shri Vivek Agarwal, Advocate
For the respondent	: Shri S.A. Saud, Advocate
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	: CHAIRMAN
SHRI ANAND KISHORE	: MEMBER

¶9

ORDER 09.08.2017

¶10

MP-PMLA-3677/AHD/2017(COD), MP-PMLA-3678/AHD/2017(Stay) & FPA-PMLA-1867/AHD/2017

¶11

The appellant has filed the present appeal u /s 26 of the prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the order dated 28^th August, 2014. Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 35 months in filing the appeal has been filed which is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. Mr. S.A. Saud, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is a huge delay so it should not be condoned.

¶12

Let the reply be filed within three weeks with an advance copy to the counsel for the appellant, who may file the rejoinder on or before the next date of hearing.

¶13

FPA-PMLA-1867/AHD/2016

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that notice u/s 8(4) has been issued. He submitted that without prejudice his client is prepared to deposit the purchase value of Rs. 14,99,500/- calculated on pro-rata basis with the respondent within three weeks. Subject to said deposit, the operation of notice u/s 8(4) shall remain stayed. The appellant shall not deal with the attached property in any manner directly or indirectly.

¶16

List on 6^th September, 2017

¶17

We may clarify here that incase the said agreed amount is not deposited within three weeks by the appellant with the respondent, the interim order shall be treated as vacated. The respondent will be entitled to take the possession of the property. It is also agreed by the appellants’ counsel that in case the application for condonation of delay is dismissed on merit, the interim order will be vacated.

¶18

In the meantime, the respondent is granted three weeks time to file the reply to the application for condonation of delay.

¶19

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

¶20

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶21

(Anand Kishore)

¶22

Member

¶23

New Delhi, 9^th August, 2017 ‘s’

¶24

FPA-PMLA-1867/AHD/2016

¶25

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-1867/AHD/2017 of Sh. Ripal Girishchandra Shah v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmadabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

FPA-PMLA-1867/AHD/2017 of Sh. Ripal Girishchandra Shah v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmadabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases