Disposed

FPA-PMLA-2002/CHN/2017 of Shri Ashok Bajaj v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

ATFP26 Oct 2017FPA-PMLA-2002/CHN/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this interim order, the tribunal noted conflicting claims regarding the possession of an attached factory. While the respondent claimed possession was taken, the appellant disputed this. The court directed maintenance of status-quo and set time limits for filing reply and rejoinder.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance of status-quo directed regarding the attached factory property pending filing of reply and rejoinder.

FPA-PMLA-2002/CHN/2017 of Shri Ashok Bajaj v/s The Deputy… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3927/CHN/ 2017 (Stay) & FPA-PMLA-2002/CHN/2017

¶3

Shri Ashok Bajaj … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent

¶4

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶5

For the Appellant : Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. N. K. Matta, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SMT. ANANYA RAY : MEMBER

¶6

ORDER 26.10.2017

¶7

FPA-PMLA-2002/CHN/2017 & MP-PMLA-3927/CHN/ 2017 (Stay)

¶8

Appeal has been filed under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 challenging the order dated 01^st September, 2017. Issue Notice. Mr. N. K. Matta, accepts the notice. He seeks time to file the reply. Let the same be filed within six weeks. Copy of the same be served to the learned counsel for the appellant, who may file the rejoinder within four weeks thereafter.

¶9

List the appeal on 10^th April, 2018.

¶10

Along with the appeal, the appellant has also filed the interim application. The appellant has also received the notice under Section 8(4) on 15^th September, 2017 for handing over the possession.

¶11

Mr. N. K. Matta, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the possession has already been taken. On the contrary, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the physical possession has not been

¶12

FPA-PMLA-2002/CHN/2017

¶13

Page 1 of 2

¶14

taken by the respondent. It is a full fledged factory which is being operated.

¶15

Since, there are two different versions, it would be appropriate that the ‘ status-quo ’ order be passed in the matter. We direct that the reply to this appeal be filed within six weeks with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder within four weeks thereafter.

¶16

List this application on 10^th April, 2018. In the meanwhile, we direct that the parties shall maintain the ‘ status-quo ’ in the matter in relation to the attached property i.e. factory in question.

¶17

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

¶18

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶19

(Ananya Ray) Member

¶20

New Delhi,

¶21

26^th October, 2017

¶22

‘AS’

¶23

FPA-PMLA-2002/CHN/2017

¶24

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-2002/CHN/2017 of Shri Ashok Bajaj v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-2002/CHN/2017 of Shri Ashok Bajaj v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

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