Allowed

FPA-PMLA-1192/BBS/2016 of M/s. Serajuddin & Co. v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bhubaneswar

ATFP6 May 2019FPA-PMLA-1192/BBS/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal set aside impugned retention orders in four matters due to the inordinately long delay in filing prosecution complaints under Section 8(3)(a) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The decision was expressed on procedural grounds rather than merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned retention orders set aside; appeals allowed on procedural grounds of delay.

FPA-PMLA-1192/BBS/2016 of M/s. Serajuddin & Co. v/s The Joint… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2019)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

1. MP-PMLA-4771/BBS/2018 (E.H.) MP-PMLA-2501/BBS/2016 (A.D.) MP-PMLA-2350/BBS/2016 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1192/BBS/2016
M/s. Serajuddin & Co.	…	Appellant/Applicant
Versus
The Joint Director
Directorate of Enforcement, Bhubaneswar	…	Respondent
2. MP-PMLA-2351/BBS/2016 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1193/BBS/2016
M/s. Yazdani International Pvt. Ltd.	…	Appellant/Applicant
Versus
The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bhubaneswar	…	Respondent
3. MP-PMLA-2352/BBS/2016 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1194/BBS/2016
Mr. Seraj Yusha, Mr. Meraj Yousha & Ors.	…	Appellants/Applicants
Versus
The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bhubaneswar	…	Respondent
&
4. MP-PMLA-2353/BBS/2016 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1195/BBS/2016
Mr. Sarosh Yazdani	…	Appellant/Applicant
Versus
The Joint Director
Directorate of Enforcement, Bhubaneswar	…	Respondent

¶3

Advocates/Authorized Repr	esentatives who appeared
For the Appellants	: Mr. Dr. Shamsuddin, Advocate Mr. Devesh Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent	: Mrs. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam, Advocate
FPA-PMLA-1192-1195/BBS/2016	Page 1 of 2

¶4

CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN

¶5

ORDER

¶6

06.05.2019

¶7

FPA-PMLA-1192-1195/BBS/2016

¶8

Learned counsel for the respondent states that she has verified from the respondent. She has confirmed that no Prosecution Complaint has been filed. The impugned order in the above said matter was passed on 01^st December, 2015. More than three years and five months have been passed. As per the requirements of Section 8(3)(a), the Prosecution Compliant is liable to be filed within ninety days from the date of passing of the retention order. As already mentioned, the impugned order was passed on 01^st December, 2015. As of today no prosecution complaint has been filed.

¶9

Under these circumstances, the retention does not survive. The appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned order. It is clarified that the appeals are not decided on merits.

¶10

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

¶11

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶12

New Delhi, 06^th May, 2019

¶13

‘AS’

¶14

FPA-PMLA-1192-1195/BBS/2016

¶15

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-1192/BBS/2016 of M/s. Serajuddin & Co. v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bhubaneswar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1192/BBS/2016 of M/s. Serajuddin & Co. v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bhubaneswar

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