Partly allowed

FPA-PMLA-982/MUM/2015 of M/s Narain Garh Sugar Mills Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

ATFP3 Oct 2017FPA-PMLA-982/MUM/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal addressed two appeals concerning possession of sugar mills under the PMLA. With the respondent absent and no reply filed, the Tribunal disposed of the matter and directed both parties to maintain status-quo, restraining the appellant from selling or creating third-party interests in the properties until final orders.

What did the court decide?

Status-quo maintained; appellant restrained from selling or creating third-party interest in attached properties pending final orders.

FPA-PMLA-982/MUM/2015 of M/s Narain Garh Sugar Mills Ltd. v/s The… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3878/MUM/2017 (E.H.) MP-PMLA-1881/MUM/2015 (Stay) &

¶3

FPA-PMLA-982/MUM/2015

¶4

M/s Narain Garh Sugar Mills Ltd. … Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

¶7

… Respondent

¶8

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶9

For the appellant : Shri Zorawar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : None

¶10

CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI ANAND KISHORE : MEMBER

¶11

ORDER 03.10.2017

¶12

FPA-PMLA-982/MUM/2015 & MP-PMLA-3878/MUM/2017 (E.H.)

¶13

The present appeal is coming up on 25^th October, 2017. The impugned order in the above said matter was passed on 28^th May, 2015 in O.C. No. 407 of 2015. Admittedly after passing the order, the appellant received the notice dated 11^th February, 2016 for taking the possession under section 8 (4) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The said notice was received by the appellant on 05^th March, 2016. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no steps were taken by the respondent for more than one and half year and the receipt of the notice was pointed out by the appellant before this Tribunal on 18^th August, 2016. Time was sought by the respondent to file the reply to the stay application which has so far not been filed by the respondent. Admittedly, the appeal and pending stay application is coming up before us on 25^th October, 2017.

¶14

FPA-PMLA-982/MUM/2015 Page 1 of 2

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Mr. Harish Sharma, Enforcement Officer came to the appellant on 22^nd August, 2017 to take the constructive possession of the Sugar Mill. However, the same was not taken. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant have no option but to file the present application before this Tribunal. Copy of the same was served to the learned counsel for the respondent. However, no one appears on behalf of the respondent.

¶16

The learned counsel for the appellant should not create any third party interest till the appeal is finally decided.

¶17

The same is disposed of.

¶18

List on 25^th October, 2017.

¶19

Both the parties shall maintain ‘ status-quo’ in relation to the attached properties in question. The appellant till the final orders are passed in the appeal shall not sell, disposed of or create any third party interest in the property in question.

¶20

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶21

(Anand Kishore)

¶22

Member

¶23

New Delhi, 03^rd October, 2017

¶24

‘AS’

¶25

FPA-PMLA-982/MUM/2015 Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-982/MUM/2015 of M/s Narain Garh Sugar Mills Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-982/MUM/2015 of M/s Narain Garh Sugar Mills Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

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