The Tribunal heard an interim application regarding Paragraph 7 of a confirmation order under the PMLA. The court held a status quo order for the possession of the property based on the appellant's undertaking.
Status quo passed regarding the possession of the property.
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 MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI
MP-PMLA-5086/LKW/2018 (Stay) &
FPA-PMLA-2608/LKW/2018
Pankaj Saxena … Appellant/Applicant
Versus
The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow
… Respondents
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajat Jain, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Neeraj Atri, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN
ORDER 15.10.2018
FPA-PMLA-2608/LKW/2018 & MP-PMLA-5086/LKW/2018 (Stay)
Fresh appeal has been filed under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the order dated 06th September, 2018. The confirmation order has been passed by the impugned order with regard to the seven immovable properties and two movables. The check period of the services of the appellant Mr. Pankaj Saxena is May, 2006 to September, 2010. Notice under Section 8(4) has been issued. Learned counsel for the appellant is only pressing the relief in the interim application with regard to the property no.7 mentioned in the impugned order. The details of which are given as under:
| S. | Details of Properties | Name of the |
Amount involved |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. | purchaser & Date of Purchase |
(Rs.) (Approx.) | |
| 1. | MDH 2/78, Sector H, |
Shri Pankaj |
4,00,000/- |
| Jankipuram, Sitapur Road, Lucknow |
Saxena |
FPA-PMLA-2608/LKW/2018
Page 1 of 2
He states that the appellant undertakes not to dispose of the said property in any manner directly or indirectly as the appellant, his wife and his children are residing in the property. It is also stated by him that the said property was purchased in 2002 when the appellant was not in service.
Mr. Neeraj Atri is opposing the interim prayer, it is submitted by Mr. Atri, learned counsel for the respondent that Mr. Pankaj Saxena is the main accused in the matter and the said property has been attached in value thereof.
Since the undertaking has been given by the appellant coupled with the fact that the appellant, his wife and family members are residing in the said property, status quo order is passed with regard to the possession of the said property. Counsel for the appellant agrees to take the instructions from his client to secure the user and occupation charges of the property, if the appellant is in a position to deposit the said amount.
Reply be filed by the respondent within six weeks with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder within four weeks thereafter.
Copy of the order be given ‘ dasti ’ to both the parties.
The property was also been mortgaged with the LIC who was not arrayed as the party in the complaint.
List on 18th March, 2019.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
New Delhi, 15th October, 2018 ‘AS’
FPA-PMLA-2608/LKW/2018
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to interim protection regarding possession of the immovable property mentioned in the impugned order?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Pankaj Saxena
The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow
MANMOHAN SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
