Disposed

FPA-PMLA-645/MUM/2014 of Sudesh Madhukar Kulkarni v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

ATFP3 May 2018FPA-PMLA-645/MUM/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal recorded an earlier stay order allowing the appellant to remain in possession. The appellant stated an intention to deposit use and occupation charges and argued the property owner was not involved in the scheduled offence. The matter was adjourned to the next date for hearing three other matters.

What the court decided

AI extract

FPA-PMLA-645/MUM/2014 of Sudesh Madhukar Kulkarni v/s The Deputy… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2018)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

FPA-PMLA-645/MUM/2014 Sudesh Madhukar Kulkarni … Applicant/Appellant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai … Respondents

¶3

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶4

For the appellant : Shri Amit Seth, Advocate and For the respondent : Mohd. Faraz, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER ORDER 03.05.2018

¶5

FPA-PMLA-645/MUM/2014

¶6

The counsel for the appellants referred the order dated 16^th April, 2015 passed by this Tribunal‟s full bench. The operative part of the order reads as under:

¶7

“With this direction an interim stay is granted in favour of applicant against his dispossession during the pendency of the appeal till this order is vacated or modified on account of any grounds raised by the respondent in future and the present application for stay is disposed of. It is also ordered that during the pendency of the appeal, the applicant shall not surrender the tenancy rights in favor of the landlord without the prior permission of this Tribunal nor shall part with the possession of the premises to any other persons or legal entity without the permission of this Tribunal nor will create any third party rights during the pendency of this appeal.

¶8

FPA-PMLA-645/MUM/2014

¶9

Reply limited to new pleas or new ground has not been filed nor any cogent reason has been disclosed for not filing the reply within time granted by this Tribunal. The right of the respondent to file the reply is therefore closed.

¶10

Parties are directed to file the copies of the document which were filed before the Adjudicating Authority and on which they rely in support of their pleas and contentions in this appeal, by two working days before the next date of hearing.”

¶11

FPA-PMLA-645/MUM/2014

¶12

Page 1 of 2

¶13

The said order is taken on record. The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant states that the appeal may be disposed of accordingly. In addition he also states that his client has agreed to deposit use and occupation charges as he is the tenant of the property. He further states that the owner of the property is not involved in the scheduled offence. The said aspect will be considered on the next date with other three matters.

¶14

Re-notify on 26^th July, 2018.

¶15

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶16

(G.C. Mishra) Member

¶17

New Delhi, 3^rd May, 2018

¶18

„K‟

¶19

FPA-PMLA-645/MUM/2014

¶20

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-645/MUM/2014 of Sudesh Madhukar Kulkarni v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

FPA-PMLA-645/MUM/2014 of Sudesh Madhukar Kulkarni v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases