Disposed

FPA-PMLA-1911/KOL/2017 of Bipin Kumar Vohra v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata

ATFP1 Sept 2017FPA-PMLA-1911/KOL/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of an interim challenge to an attachment order under PMLA. It declined the appellant's request for a stay pending hearing but granted a status-quo order subject to a security deposit of Rs. 2 Lakhs per month from the date of the impugned confirmation order.

What did the court decide?

Status-quo order granted from date of confirmation order, subject to deposit of Rs. 2 Lakhs per month; attachment continued.

FPA-PMLA-1911/KOL/2017 of Bipin Kumar Vohra v/s The… — Writ and Judicial Review | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3773/KOL/2017 (Stay) &

¶3

FPA-PMLA-1911/KOL/2017

¶4

Bipin Kumar Vohra … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata … Respondent

¶5

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶6

For the Appellant : Mr. Nitin Sangra, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Vikas Garg, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MAN MOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER

¶7

ORDER 01.09.2017

¶8

FPA-PMLA-1911/KOL/2017

¶9

The appellant in the above said matter has challenged the order dated 04^th August, 2017. The appeal is fixed by the Registry on 21^st September, 2017. In the meanwhile, the respondent has issued the notice under Section 8(4) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which is dated 22^nd August, 2017 (received by the appellant on 25^th August, 2017). In the said notice the details of the Schedule Immovable properties are mentioned. The learned counsel for the appellant is pressing for the Interim Order in the meanwhile i.e. till the next date of hearing. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the immovable properties at Kolkata are let out on rent with regard to the properties in Gurgaon where Mrs. Adarsh Kumari aged about 83 years (patient of Brain Hemorrhage), Mother of the appellant is residing. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that till the next date i.e. 21^st September, 2017 the appellant undertakes not to disposed of or deals with the property further in any manner. He agrees that till the FPA-PMLA-1911/KOL/2017 Page 1 of 2

¶10

next date of hearing the attachment will continue except the possession should not be taken by the Respondent. Without prejudice he has to deposit Rs. 2 Lakhs per month from the date of impugned confirmation order with the respondent. He states that in the next date he will produce the copies of the let out and rent agreement of the Kolkata Properties whatever is available in the power and possession of the appellant.

¶11

The request is strongly opposed by Mr. Vikas Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent who submits that in view of the conduct of the appellant the Interim Order should not be passed. Since the notice has been issued before the hearing of the appeal, we are inclined to pass the ‘Status-quo’ order subject to the deposit of Rs. 2 Lakhs per month as provisions of user and occupation charges with the respondent from the date of confirmation order. The amount shall be deposited by the appellant within two weeks from today.

¶12

An undertaking given by the appellant is also accepted. The attachment orders as per impugned order shall also continue. The appellant will also file the copies of the rent agreements by the next date of hearing. Liberty is granted to the respondent to verify the actual possession of the properties as in Kolkata as well as in Gurgaon and market rent so that, order is passed on the next date of hearing for enhancement if so required.

¶13

List on 21^st September, 2017.

¶14

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

¶15

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶16

(G.C. Mishra) Member

¶17

New Delhi, 01^st September, 2017

¶18

‘AS’

¶19

FPA-PMLA-1911/KOL/2017

¶20

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-1911/KOL/2017 of Bipin Kumar Vohra v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1911/KOL/2017 of Bipin Kumar Vohra v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata

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