Remanded

FPA-PMLA-2190/LKW/2018 of Sushil Kumar Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow v/s Shri Anubhav Mittal &Ors.

ATFP11 May 2018FPA-PMLA-2190/LKW/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal addressed the retention of seized items during a search under the PMLA. It denied retention for footwear stock deemed unnecessary and perishable, ordering release via a local commissioner. Retention was granted for other items. The tribunal appointed a commissioner to inventory and release the footwear.

What did the court decide?

Release of seized footwear stock via a local commissioner; retention approved for other seized items; appointment of local commissioner with fee fixed.

FPA-PMLA-2190/LKW/2018 of Sushil Kumar Assistant Director… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2018)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-4269/LKW/2018(COD) FPA-PMLA-2190/LKW/2018

¶3

Sushil Kumar Assistant Director, … Appellant Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow

¶4

Versus

¶5

Shri Anubhav Mittal &Ors.	… Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Repres For the Appellant	entatives who appeared : Shri Nitesh Rana, Advocate Ms. A.R. Aditya Pragati Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent	: Mr. Yash, Advocate
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH SHRI G. C. MISHRA	: CHAIRMAN : MEMBER

¶6

ORDER 11.05.2018

¶7

FPA-PMLA-2190/LKW/2018

¶8

The Adjudicating Authority with regard to Item No. 3 did not grant the permission to the ED for retention of the goods, the details of the same are mentioned in Para-2 of the Interim Order. The operative part of Para-2 of the impugned order is read as under:-

¶9

“ During the course of oral arguments, Counsel for Respondent expressed his concurrence for retention of the property/ documents seized during the search but he mentioned that in the 3^rd premise shoes/footwear having an approximate cost of Rs. 4 crores are also seized. He mentioned that such huge stock may not be needed for further investigation in the matter and such stock can either be released on furnishing surety or may be disposed of in some other manner so that the premise are not continued to be carried on rent for no reason. He also requested that the other 2 premises building should also be made available to the Respondent and the record/property seized therefrom may be taken by the Authorities. Although Respondent Counsel approved of retention of seized record/ properties, it appears that retention of item No. 3 i.e. seized stocks of the company may not at all be necessary for further investigation in the matter and permission to retain item No. 3 does not appear to be justified. Therefore, permission to retain item No. 3 is being denied. In respect of item No. 1 & 2 permission for retention appears justified and permission for retention is granted.”

¶10

FPA-PMLA-2190/LKW/2018

¶11

Page 1 of 2

¶12

The Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 19^th June, 2017 hasbeen challenged by the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow. Both the parties have made their submissions. There is no opposition on behalf of the appellant. In the meanwhile, the shoes and footwear lying in the premises i.e. Item no. 3, we release/dispose of as the retention is not required for those goods which are otherwise perishable and belonging to the third party. With the consent of the party, Ms. Aagam Kaur (Mobile 9999770785 ) is appointed as the Local Commissioner to visit the premises where the said case i.e. shoes and footwear as Item no.3 are lying. She will prepare the inventory of the said case and release the same to the party concerned and the list drawn be attached with her report. The appellant as well as the respondent will give full cooperation to the learned Local Commissioner. The representatives of the appellant as well as the respondent are ready to participate in the proceedings. Copy of the list prepared will also be handed over to the representatives of the appellant as well as the respondent. The proceedings be conducted within four weeks from today. The appellant will pay the fee of the Local Commissioner for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) per day in advance apart from other expenses. The compliance be completed within 3 days.

¶13

Copy of the Order be given ‘ Dasti ’ to the party as well as to the Local Commissioner.

¶14

List the matter for direction on 11^th July, 2018.

¶15

(Justice Manmohan Singh)

¶16

Chairman

¶17

(G. C. Mishra) Member

¶18

New Delhi, 11^th May, 2018

¶19

‘skb’

¶20

FPA-PMLA-2190/LKW/2018

¶21

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-2190/LKW/2018 of Sushil Kumar Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow v/s Shri Anubhav Mittal &Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-2190/LKW/2018 of Sushil Kumar Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow v/s Shri Anubhav Mittal &Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases