FPA-PMLA-1754/RNC/2017 of Shri Ram Swaroop Rungta v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi

ATFP18 Dec 2018FPA-PMLA-1754/RNC/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate tribunal fixed this matter for hearing in the subsequent week to allow the respondent to file a written synopsis in response to the appellation.

What the court decided

AI extract

FPA-PMLA-1754/RNC/2017 of Shri Ram Swaroop Rungta… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | ATFP (2018)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR SAFEMA, FEMA, PMLA, NDPS, PBPT ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3387/RNC/2017 (Stay) MP-PMLA-3388/RNC/2017 (Misc.) &
FPA-PMLA-1753/RNC/2017
Shri Ram Chandra Rungta	… Appellant
MP-PMLA-3389/RNC/2017 (Stay)
MP-PMLA-3390/RNC/2017 (Misc.) &
FPA-PMLA-1754/RNC/2017
Shri Ram Swaroop Rungta	… Appellant
MP-PMLA-3391/RNC/2017 (Stay) MP-PMLA-3392/RNC/2017 (Misc.) & FPA-PMLA-1755/RNC/2017
Shri R.K. Chourasia	… Appellant
MP-PMLA-4174/RNC/2017 (Stay)
In MP-PMLA-3334/RNC/2017 (Stay) &
FPA-PMLA-1718/RNC/2017
M/s. Jharkhand Ispat Pvt. Ltd.	… Appellant
Versus
The Joint Director
Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi	… Respondent

¶3

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶4

For the appellants	:	Shri Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate
		Shri Arshdeep Singh, Advocate Shri Manish Jha, Advocate Ms. Aakashi Lodha, Advocate
For the respondent	:	Shri S.K. Sharma, Advocate

¶5

FPA-PMLA-1753-1755 & 1718/RNC/2017

¶6

Page 1 of 3

¶7

CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH SHRI G.C. MISHRA

¶8

: CHAIRMAN : MEMBER

¶9

ORDER

¶10

18.12.2018

¶11

FPA-PMLA-1753-1755 & 1718/RNC/2017

¶12

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued the matter for some time. Appellant has also filed the written synopsis. The counsel for the appellant has later on referred para which is at page 50 of the impugned order. The same is read as under:

¶13

“It is argued that there is an attempt on part of the complainant to change its case. It is argued that the complainant is now contending that the investor company are group company of D-1 and the person who had given statement on behalf of such investor company are related/interested person. Earlier nowhere is was pointed out that there exist link or relationship between such companies and D-1. In this regard it is material to note that the investigation under the PMLA are still ongoing and as such no complaint in respect of the offence of money laundering, punishable under Section 4 of PMLA is so far filed. Certainly the matter can be investigated in this direction. The fact remains that what has been introduced into the company was either used for the projection and representations to be made and/or are obtained pursuant to the allocation of the coal block.”

¶14

Counsel for the appellant has also referred the judgment dated 23^rd August, 2018 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P (C) 5537/2018, titled as “Himachal EMTA Power Ltd. v. Union of India” (2018 SCC OnlineDel 11078). The senior counsel states that the present case is totally covered with the said judgment as the facts are similar.

¶15

Counsel for the respondent states that he has come to know that the order is likely to be challenged before the Supreme Court.

¶16

FPA-PMLA-1753-1755 & 1718/RNC/2017

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

The learned counsel for the respondent is allowed to file the written

¶19

synopsis within two weeks.

¶20

List on 22^nd January, 2019.

¶21

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶22

(G.C. Mishra) Member

¶23

New Delhi,

¶24

18^th December, 2018

¶25

‘A’

¶26

FPA-PMLA-1753-1755 & 1718/RNC/2017

¶27

Page 3 of 3

FPA-PMLA-1754/RNC/2017 of Shri Ram Swaroop Rungta v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

FPA-PMLA-1754/RNC/2017 of Shri Ram Swaroop Rungta v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases