Disposed

FPA-PMLA-2665/PTN/2018 of Mintu Kumar v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Patna

ATFP5 Nov 2018FPA-PMLA-2665/PTN/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal admitted an appeal challenging an attachment order. It directed the respondent to file a reply regarding ownership disputes within six weeks, maintained the status quo, and sought cogent reasons for the attachment rather than issuing a substantive ruling.

What did the court decide?

Status quo maintained; reply directed from respondent.

FPA-PMLA-2665/PTN/2018 of Mintu Kumar v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Patna — ATFP (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR SAFEMA, FEMA, PMLA, NDPS, PBPT ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-5190/PTN/2018 (E.H.) MP-PMLA-5191/PTN/2018 (Stay) MP-PMLA-5192/PTN/2018 (Misc.) MP-PMLA-5193/PTN/2018 (Exem.) &

¶3

FPA-PMLA-2665/PTN/2018

¶4

Mintu Kumar … Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Patna … Respondent

¶7

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶8

For the appellant	: Shri Naveen Malhotra, Advocate
For the respondent	: Shri A.P. Nagar, Advocate on behalf of Shri N.K. Matta, Advocate
CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	: CHAIRMAN

¶9

ORDER 05.11.2018

¶10

FPA-PMLA-2665/PTN/2018

¶11

Fresh appeal has been filed by Mr. Mintu Kumar under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the order dated 14^th September, 2018 which has come to the notice of the appellant on 15^th October, 2018. The counsel for the appellant admits that Mintu Kumar was not a party before the Adjudicating Authority. The property attached by the ED respondent. The detail of the property as follows:

¶12

S.No.	Description of the Property	Name of Purchaser	Deed No.	Date of Purchase	Amount
1.	Mohalla- Magarhatta, Hajipur, Surveyward-10,	Sangeeta Roy, W/o Amit	3418	19/04/201 2	25,00,000/-
FPA-PML	A-2665/PTN/2018				Page 1 of 2

¶13

Page 1 of 2

¶14

Khata No. 355,	Kumar
Khesra No. 58, Old
Khesra No. 1552,
1553, 1554, 1555,
Area-1 Kattha

¶15

Counsel for the appellant states that Mintu Kumar actually the owner of the property of the said property. He had taken Byana (advance amount) from Smt. Sangeeta Roy who is the wife of the alleged accused Shri Amit Kumar. Since the remaining amount was not paid by the Sangeet Roy, the advance amount were forfeited by Mintu Kumar. It is also stated by him that the ED has attached the property on the basis of the agreement arrived between the Mintu Kumar and Sangeeta Roy. It is reteirated that as of today he is owner of the property. The possession is also with him. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the respondent has put one board outside the property claiming that the property is belonging to the respondent under Section 8(4) of the Act. Let the reply be filed by the respondent within six weeks with an advance copy to the learned cousnel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder four weeks thereafter.

¶16

List on 19^th March, 2019.

¶17

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

¶18

In the meanwhile, it is directed that status quo shall maintain by both

¶19

the parties in relation to the above mentioned property.

¶20

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶21

New Delhi, 05^th November, 2018 ‘A’

¶22

FPA-PMLA-2665/PTN/2018

¶23

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-2665/PTN/2018 of Mintu Kumar v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Patna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-2665/PTN/2018 of Mintu Kumar 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases