Disposed

FPA-PMLA-643/MUM/2014 of M/s Brizo Reality Company Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai & Ors.

ATFP18 Jan 2017FPA-PMLA-643/MUM/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal disposed of an appeal under the PMLA and a fresh withdrawal application. The respondent agreed to the withdrawal, and the Tribunal disposed of the matter as withdrawn following the High Court's prior directions regarding property attachment.

What the court decided

AI extract

FPA-PMLA-643/MUM/2014 of M/s Brizo Reality Company Pvt. Ltd. v/s… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3114/MUM/2017 MP-PMLA-2814/MUM/2016 (Misc.) FPA-PMLA-643/MUM/2014

¶3

M/s Brizo Reality Company Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant/Applicant Versus

¶4

The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai & Ors. .… Respondents

¶5

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶6

For the appellants : Shri Arjun Bhandari, Advocate For the respondent : Shri S.A. Saud, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA : MEMBER SHRI ANAND KISHORE : MEMBER

¶7

ORDER 18.01.2017

¶8

MP-PMLA-3114/MUM/2017 & FPA-PMLA-643/MUM/2014

¶9

(1) The appellant in the above said matter filed the appeal under section 26(1) of the PMLA, 2002 against the final order dated 30^th July, 2014 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi in O.C. No. 265/2014.

¶10

(2) The fresh application has been filed by the appellant to withdraw the appeal.

¶11

(3) It appears that after filing the appeal the petitioner filed Writ Petition no. 4217/2015 in the High Court of Judicature, Bombay (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) seeking certain directions.

¶12

(4) The writ petition was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 19^th December, 2016 as corrected by the order dated 5^th January, 2017. The operative portion of the said orders are as under:

¶13

FPA-PMLA-643/MUM/2014

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

Judgment dated 19^th December, 2016

¶16

10. We, accordingly, dispose of this petition by passing the following order:

¶17

(i) Attachment of the subject premises namely office No. 1102 admeasuring 10258 sq. ft. on the 11^th floor in the building known as Tower-B, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, along with 15 car parking space, by the State under Section 4 of the MPID Act, by notification dated 12^th March, 2015, and attachment by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 5 of the PMLA Act by order dated 30^th July 2014, is quashed and set aside and the subject property is released from the attachment subject to the petitioner depositing the amount of Rs. 8.50 Crores in this court in the following manner:

¶18

An amount of Rs. 6.50 Crores shall be deposited on or before 28^th February, 2017 and the balance amount of Rs. 2.50 Crores on or before 31^st March, 2017, after deducting TDS.

¶19

(ii) In view of the above said order, the order of the MPID Court passed on 3^rd October 2016 below Exhibit 185 directing petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 6.50 Crores will not survive.

¶20

(iii) It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter and this order is passed on concession and merely because petitioner has shown willingness to deposit an amount of Rs. 8.50 Cores in this court.

¶21

(iv) If it is found at later stage that petitioner has received any amount from Astha Group, then the said amount shall be deposited by the petitioner, after receipt of notice to that effect, within a period of 30 days.

¶22

(v) Once the amount is deposited, Registrar (Judicial) is directed to invest this amount in any nationalized bank for a initial period of 6 months and thereafter go on renewing the same.

¶23

Judgment dated 5^th January, 2017.

¶24

“(1) Heard

¶25

(2) The praecipe is filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner for „Speaking minutes‟ of the order dated 19^th December, 2016.

¶26

(3) Mr. Kedia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner showed willingness to deposit an amount of Rs. 6.50 Crores, which is alleged to be crime proceed and in addition to this further showed willingness to deposit additional amount of Rs. 2.00 Crores. He further submits that despite this, in paragraph 9 & 10, additional amount which the petitioner showed willingness to deposit is transcribed as Rs. 2.50 Crores.

¶27

(4) Learned Counsel for the respondents also concedes that on the date of hearing of the said above petitions, the petitioner agreed to deposit Rs. 6.50 crores + Additional Rs. 2.00 Crores and there is typographical error in transcribing this amount in paragraph 9 & 10 of the said order.

¶28

(5) In the above circumstances, the figure of Rs. 2.50 crores in paragraph 9 (page 7) and paragraph 10 (page 9) be corrected as Rs. 2.00 crores.

¶29

FPA-PMLA-643/MUM/2014

¶30

Page 2 of 3

¶31

(6) The order dated 19^th December, 2016 stands corrected accordingly.”

¶32

Copy of the order was also handed over by the counsel for the appellant to the counsel for the respondent. The original reply has been filed alongwith application.

¶33

It has been noted from the said order that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in the said writ petition had agreed to deposit the total sum of Rs. 8.50 crores which includes the attached amount of Rs. 6.50 crores + additional Rs. 2.00 crores.

¶34

The learned counsel for the appellant states that they would comply with the order passed by the High Court of Judicature, Bombay (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) and in view of the said order of the Hon’ble High Court, he seeks to withdraw the present appeal as per instructions received from his client.

¶35