Disposed

FPA-PMLA-445/BNG/2013 of Smt. Sowbhagya v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore

ATFP5 Apr 2018FPA-PMLA-445/BNG/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals against orders under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were adjourned sine die pending the outcome of a pending writ petition filed by the appellants challenging related proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals were adjourned sine die to await the order in a pending writ petition filed by the appellants.

FPA-PMLA-445/BNG/2013 of Smt. Sowbhagya v/s The Joint… — Company and Corporate | ATFP (2018)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3145/BNG/2017 (Misc.) FPA-PMLA-444/BNG/2013
M. Gopi	… Appellant
Versus
The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore	… Respondent
MP-PMLA-3065/BNG/2017 (Misc.) FPA-PMLA-445/BNG/2013
Smt. Sowbhagya	… Appellant/Applicant
Versus
The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore	… Respondent

¶3

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶4

For the appellant	: Shri R. Swaroop Anand, Advocate
For the respondent	: Shri Vikas Garg, Advocate
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	: CHAIRMAN

¶5

ORDER

¶6

05.04.2018

¶7

FPA-PMLA-444/BNG/2013, MP-PMLA-3145/BNG/2017 (Misc.) & FPA-PMLA-445/BNG/2013 , MP-PMLA-3065/BNG/2017 (Misc.)

¶8

The learned counsel for the appellant in the above said appeals have made their submissions for some time. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that Smt. Sowbhagya who is in the appellant in appeal no. FPA-PMLA-445/BNG/2013 has also filed the writ petition in W.P. No. 14549/2016 because of the reasons after passing the

¶9

FPA-PMLA-444/BNG/2013 & FPA-PMLA-445/BNG/2013

¶10

Page 1 of 3

¶11

impugned order, the complaint under section 45 was filed by the respondent. It is alleged by the counsel that the filing of the complaint is contrary to the provisions of Section 5 & 8 of the PML Act. The said writ petition is still pending where the order has been passed in the complaint filed under section 45 of the Act wherein the stay order has been passed for further proceeding in the said complaint by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appeal in FPA-PMLA-445/BNG/2013 is not charged under the Schedule Offence case.

¶12

As regards the appellant Mr. M. Gopi who filed the appeal no. FPAPMLA/444/BNG/2013 is concerned, admittedly the proceedings of scheduled offence have been quashed by the High Court, Special Leave Petition has been preferred by the State Government of Karnataka before the Hon’ble Supreme Court where the leave has been granted. But no stay has not granted by the Appellant.

¶13

As far as the maintainability of the complaint under section 45 against M. Gopi and Smt. Sowbhagya are concerned Mr. Vikas Garg submits that since the challenge has been made. Thus, let this tribunal may await the order to be passed in the said writ petition. As agreed by the counsel for appellants in both appeal, let this tribunal may await the final outcome of the decision in the wit-petition.

¶14

Under these circumstances both appeals are sine-die adjourned as and when the order is passed, both parties are liberty to move the application accordingly.

¶15

FPA-PMLA-444/BNG/2013 & FPA-PMLA-445/BNG/2013

¶16

Page 2 of 3

¶17

It was pointed out that Mr. Vikas Garg that another writ petition 19008/2018 has been filed by the appellant which is admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶18

Mr. Vikas Garg also pointed out that as a matter of fact there are two writ petitions 14549/2016 and 14550/2016 have been filed. The learned counsel for the appellant that al the facts are disclosed in both appeal and nothing has been concealed. He says that the same are also mentioned in MP-PMLA-3065/BNG/2017 therefore appellants are not guilty of any concealment of facts.

¶19

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶20

New Delhi, 5^th April, 2018

¶21

‘D’

¶22

FPA-PMLA-444/BNG/2013 & FPA-PMLA-445/BNG/2013

¶23

Page 3 of 3

FPA-PMLA-445/BNG/2013 of Smt. Sowbhagya v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-445/BNG/2013 of Smt. Sowbhagya v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases