FPA-PMLA-2140/DLI/2018 of Union Bank of India v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

ATFP19 Jan 2018FPA-PMLA-2140/DLI/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal heard an appeal under Section 26 of PMLA with a concurrent application for condonation of delay. The appellant claimed lack of notice and opportunity. The court adjourned the matter for filing affidavits and verification regarding service of notice and appearance recording, listing the condonation application for February 9, 2018.

What the court decided

AI extract

FPA-PMLA-2140/DLI/2018 of Union Bank of India v/s The Deputy… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2018)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-4193/DLI/2018 (Stay) MP-PMLA-4194/DLI/2018 (COD) MP-PMLA-4195/DLI/2018 (Exem.) & FPA-PMLA-2140/DLI/2018

¶3

Union Bank of India	…	Applicant
Versus
The Deputy Director
Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi	…	Respondent

¶4

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶5

For the appellant	: Ms. Nishi Chaudhary, Advocate
For the respondent	: Shri N.K. Matta, Advocate
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	: CHAIRMAN
SMT. ANANYA RAY	: MEMBER

¶6

ORDER 19.01.2018

¶7

FPA-PMLA-2140/DLI/2018

¶8

Fresh appeal has been filed under Section 26 of PMLA, 2002 against the order dated 01^st June, 2016. Alongwith the appeal, the application for condonation of delay of 523 days has also been filed. The appellant was arrayed as Defendant No. 13 in the complaint. The provisional attachment in the above-said matter was passed on 18^th December, 2015. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant came to know for the first time of the order of 24^th November, 2017 when the account became NPA, and therefore, the appeal has been filed within the prescribed time. It was also stated by the appellant that the appearance of the appellant was wrongly recorded in the impugned order as the bank was never served any

¶9

FPA-PMLA-2140/DLI/2018

¶10

Page 1 of 2

¶11

notice under Section 8 of the Act. The bank was given no opportunity to raise their plea and to argue the matter. The property in question is mortgaged with the bank by the borrower. It is also stated that the appellant has issued notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on 16^th November, 2017. In reply to the said notice, the borrower has issued a letter dated 24^th November, 2017 whereby it was informed to the appellant that the impugned order has been passed.

¶12

Issue notice. Mr. N.K. Matta learned counsel for the respondent states that after the confirmation order, the order was sent to the appellant by the Registered post. He says that notice was sent to the appellant. Later on, he has changed his statement and he says that he will verify the record and attached about details alongwith the reply. Let the same be filed within two weeks. The appellant will also filed detailed affidavit about the events with dates by the next date of hearing.

¶13

List this application for argument on condonation of delay on 09^th February, 2018.

¶14

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶15

(Ananya Ray)

¶16

Member

¶17

New Delhi, 19^th January, 2018

¶18

‘A’