FPA-PMLA-2583/PTN/2018 of Shri Rajdev Rai @ Rajdev Roy v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna

ATFP5 Oct 2018FPA-PMLA-2583/PTN/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order granting liberty to respondents not to take coercive action on three properties pending appeal. Appellants to deposit Rs. 20,000 rent every 7th; right to modify if actual market rent is higher.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to respondent not to take coercive possession on properties if appellant deposits Rs. 20,000 rent every 7th; liberty to modify rent upon verification of market rate.

FPA-PMLA-2583/PTN/2018 of Shri Rajdev Rai @ Rajdev Roy v/s The… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2018)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-5031/PTN/2018 E.H. MP-PMLA-5032/PTN/2018 Stay FPA-PMLA-2579/PTN/2018 Shri Amit Kumar @ Bachcha Rai ... Appellant MP-PMLA-5033/PTN/2018 E.H. MP-PMLA-5034/PTN/2018 Stay FPA-PMLA-2580/PTN/2018 Smt. Sangeeta Roy @ Sangeeta Rai ... Appellant MP-PMLA-5035/PTN/2018 E.H. MP-PMLA-5036/PTN/2018 Stay FPA-PMLA-2581/PTN/2018 Ms. Shalini Roy ... Appellant MP-PMLA-5037/PTN/2018 E.H. MP-PMLA-5038/PTN/2018 Stay FPA-PMLA-2582/PTN/2018 Shri Jitendra Rai @ Jitendra Roy ... Appellant MP-PMLA-5039/PTN/2018 E.H. MP-PMLA-5040/PTN/2018 Stay FPA-PMLA-2583/PTN/2018 Shri Rajdev Rai @ Rajdev Roy ... Appellant MP-PMLA-5041/PTN/2018 E.H. MP-PMLA-5042/PTN/2018 Stay FPA-PMLA-2584/PTN/2018 Smt. Sangeeta Kumari @ Sangeeta Rai ... Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna ... Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶3

For the appellant : Mr. Naveen Malhotra, Advocate For the respondent : Mr. N.K. Matta, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN ORDER 05.10.2018

¶4

FPA-PMLA-2579-2584/PTN/2018

¶5

Fresh appeals have been filed under Section 26 of Prevention of

¶6

Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the order dated 4^th September,

¶7

FPA-PMLA-2579-2584/PTN/2018

¶8

Page 1 of 3

¶9

Issue notice. Mr. N.K. Matta, Advocate accepts the notice. Let the reply be filed within six weeks with an advance copy to the counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder four weeks thereafter.

¶10

List on 19^th March, 2019.

¶11

Both the parties are allowed to file the written synopsis. As far as the interim application is concerned, the counsel for the appellant is pressing for interim order in view of the fact that the notice under Section 8(4) is issued. The appellant have received three notices in order to take possession of the following properties.

¶12

i) Flat No. 105, 1^st Floor, Sharnam Apartment, MaujaMainpur, Behind Patliputra Police station, Patna – 800 008. ii) Immovable property bearing land and two storey building constructed thereon at Mauza – Chhota gamhariya, Thana – Gamhariya, Thana No 67, Saraikela Khata No. 139, Khesra no. – 990, 3.75 dismil, Chotta Gamhariya, Saraikela Kharswan, Jharkhand – 832 108 (Deed No. 644 dated 23.02.2015). iii) Immovable property bearing Survey ward 4 Hajipur, Khata No. 430, Khesra No. 1056/1199, Nagar Parishad Hajipur, Holding No. 44, Bagh Taj Khan Pokhra, Nagar Thana, Hajipur – 844 101 (Deed No. 1364 dated 1802.2011)

¶13

Prayer is opposed by Mr. Matta. It is cleared that liberty is also given to the respondent to know the actual market rent of these properties, in case the market rent more than 20,000/- of these properties, the respondent is always at liberty to move the application for modification of the rent.

¶14

Counsel for the appellant states that these properties were purchased prior to the date of incident i.e. 2016. It is also stated by him that the family members are residing in the said property and they undertake not to dispose of the property in any manner directly or indirectly. He further states that the actual amount of proceeds of crime has not been indentify either by the Enforcement Directorate or SIT. Merely, general allegations are made against the appellant Shri Amit Kumar. As far as his contention is concerned. This tribunal at this stage does not wish to express any opinion on merit. However, with regard to

¶15

three properties are concerned that no coercive action shall be taken by FPA-PMLA-2579-2584/PTN/2018 Page 2 of 3

¶16

the respondent subject to the condition that the appellant shall deposit rent of Rs. 20,000/- with the respondent every 7^th of the month from the date of passing the impugned order and the appellants shall keep on depositing the same till the disposal of the appeal. The liberty is granted to the respondent to move an application for modification of order with regard to use and occupation charges after verifying the same from the market.

¶17

List on 19^th March, 2018.

¶18

Copy of the order be given dasti to both the parties.

¶19

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶20

New Delhi, 5^th October, 2018

¶21

‘K’

¶22

FPA-PMLA-2579-2584/PTN/2018

¶23

Page 3 of 3

FPA-PMLA-2583/PTN/2018 of Shri Rajdev Rai @ Rajdev Roy v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-2583/PTN/2018 of Shri Rajdev Rai @ Rajdev Roy v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna

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

Similar cases