The Tribunal allowed a request to implead M/s. Ablaze Info Solution Pvt. Ltd. as a necessary party in pending appeals related to property allotment and money laundering proceedings, granting time to file replies.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEYLAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI
MP-PMLA-4216/LKW/2018 (Stay)
&
FPA-PMLA-2132/LKW/2017
M/s. Omaxe Ltd. & Anr.
… Appellants
Versus
The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
| For the appellants | : | Shri Tanveer Ahmed, Advocate Shri Vaibhav Suri, Advocate & Shri Mrityunjay Kr. Singh, Advocate |
|---|---|---|
| For the respondent |
: | Shri Nitesh Rana, Advocate & Shri A.R. Aditya, Advocate |
| CORAM | ||
| JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH SHRI G.C. MISHRA |
: : |
CHAIRMAN MEMBER |
| ORDER 21.02.201 |
8 | |
| FPA-PMLA-2132/LKW/2017 |
Mr. Yash Anand appearing on behalf of M/s. Ablaze Info Solution Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors. In view of the last order passed bus u on 24th January, 2018. The admitted fact, as per the appellant, are narrated in memorandum of appeal para C & D which are read as under:
“C. One company under the name & style of M/s. Ablaze Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd. had approached the marketing executives of Appellant No.1 through a broker M/s. V.R. Infobuild LLP (Limited Liability Partners) through its representative/partner Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, by the virtue of which the said company was desirous of booking a commercial unit/space with Appellant No.1 in its project “OMAXE CONNAUGHT PLACE”. Accordingly, in terms of the
FPA-PMLA-2132/LKW/2017 Page 1 of 3
norms and rules of Appellant No.1 on 15.10.2016 the Appellant No.1 received a cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- from M/s. Ablaze Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and on 18.10.2016 an amount of Rs. 6,67,41,110/- was received by the means of RTGS towards allotment of commercial space No. 18 on the first floor having super area of 526.54 sq. meters in the aforesaid commercial immovable property against a total sale consideration of Rs. 6,72,71,723/- inclusive of all taxes.
D. That accordingly, the Appellant No.1 issued a provisional allotment letter and asked the aforesaid company to sign and execute a Builder Buyer Agreement which was handed over to the aforesaid broker for interim delivery and execution to M/s. Ablaze Info Solution Pvt. Ltd.”
Mr. Yash Anand states that total consideration of Rs. 6,72,71,723/inclusive of all taxes was paid to the appellant by virtue on Builder Buyer Agreement. The said fact has not been denied by the appellant. Mr. Yash Anand also submits that the possession to the said flat is with his client.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant states that after the execution of the agreement M/s. Ablaze Info Solution Pvt. Ltd. did not return the signed and executed Builder Buyer Agreement to the company as per the norms within 30 days in consequence of which the appellant No. 1 ultimately cancelled the allotment rights of M/s. Ablaze Info Solution Pvt. Ltd. by a communication dated 24th March, 2017. Counsel for the appellant says that under these circumstances, the possession is with the appellant and not with the M/s. Ablaze Info Solution Pvt. Ltd.
The said fact has been denied by Mr. Yash Anand counsel appearing on behalf of the M/s. Ablaze Info Solution Pvt. Ltd. According to him at the relevant time Abhinav Mittal was in judicial custody. It has already been recorded on the last date of hearing that notice under Section 8 (4) has not been issued. In case any notice is issued, the appellant may press for the interim order.
FPA-PMLA-2132/LKW/2017 Page 2 of 3
In view of the controversy between the appellant and M/s. Ablaze Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is impleaded as Respondent No. 2 being a necessary party. The request of Mr. Yash Anand is allowed as the same is not opposed by any party.
Mr. Nitesh Rana, learned counsel for the respondent seeks some time to file the reply in the main appeal. In interim application, the reply has been filed by the respondent No. 1. Let the reply to the appeal filed by Mr. Nitesh Rana within four weeks. Time is also granted to Mr. Yash Anand appearing on behalf of the M/s. Ablaze Info Solution pvt. Ltd. to file the reply within four weeks with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder four weeks thereafter.
List this matter on 11th July, 2018.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(G.C. Mishra) Member
New Delhi, 21st February, 2018
‘A’
FPA-PMLA-2132/LKW/2017 Page 3 of 3
M/s. Omaxe Ltd. & Anr.
The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow
M/s. Ablaze Info Solution Pvt. Ltd.
Manmohan Singh
G.C. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
10 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
