Allowed

FPA-PMLA-1828/DLI/2017 of Shalini Srivastava v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

ATFP15 Mar 2019FPA-PMLA-1828/DLI/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority which contained adverse observations against the appellant without considering her pleadings or applying mind. The order was deemed non-speaking and unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 31.02.2017 and dispose of the appeal.

FPA-PMLA-1828/DLI/2017 of Shalini Srivastava v/s The Deputy Director… — Corruption | ATFP (2019)

¶1

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

¶2

FPA-PMLA-1828/DLI/2017 Shalini Srivastava … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, … Respondent Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

¶3

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶4

For the appellant : Mr. Ratnsh Chandra, Advocate Mr. Dipak Seth, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Atul Tripathi, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN ORDER 15.03.2019

¶5

FPA-PMLA-1828/DLI/2017

¶6

The present appeal is filed against the impugned order dated 31.02.2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi in O.C. No. 689 of 2017 (Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement Delhi Zonal Office Vs. Sri. Vineet Gupta & Ors) whereby confirming order was passed of the provisional attachment order relating to the appellant any making certain observations against the appellant.

¶7

In the entire complaint there is no allegation of any omission or commissions of any offence on the part of the appellant and she has been impleaded for undue harassment. But the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order dated 31.05.2017 at page 101 of the order has

¶8

observed as under:-

¶9

“…… undersigned comes to the prim facie conclusion that the defendant have committed the scheduled offences, generated proceeds of crime and laundered them.”

¶10

FPA-PMLA-1828/DLI/2017 Page 1 of 3

¶11

The appellant is aggrieved only by this observation qua appellant and admittedly she has nothing to do with any of the attached property.

¶12

The appellant was defendant no. 4 in the O.C. no. 689 of 2017 and had filed her objections/reply to the Provisional Attachment Order No. 01/2017 dated 27.01.2017 in the original complaint. The reply was not dealt in the impugned order.

¶13

Till now no report under section 173 of the Cr. P.C. has been forwarded to a Magistrate in respect of the Scheduled offence against the appellant nor a complaint has been filed by the person authorized to investigate the offence mentioned in that schedule before a Magistrate or Court for taking cognizance of the scheduled offence as the case may be or a similar complaint has been made or filed under the corresponding law of any other country against the appellant.

¶14

In the complaint there is no allegation of any attachment of any movable or immovable property belonging to or owned by the appellant.

¶15

It is evident that while passing the impugned order the adjudicating authority has failed to consider the pleading raised by the appellants and has passed a non speaking against her which otherwise is also not sustainable not qualify the test of judicious decision.

¶16

The impugned against the appellant is non-application of mind by the Adjudicating Authority as it has been observed in paragraph 74 of the impugned order.

¶17

FPA-54/DLI/2002

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

In the light of the above, the appellant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority New Delhi in O.C. no. 689 of 2017 2017 (Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement Delhi Zonal Office Vs. Sri. Vineet Gupta & Ors) relating to the appellant and making observation against the appellant is set aside.

¶20

The appeal is disposed of.

¶21

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶22

New Delhi, 15^th March, 2019 S

¶23

FPA-54/DLI/2002

¶24

Page 3 of 3

FPA-PMLA-1828/DLI/2017 of Shalini Srivastava v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1828/DLI/2017 of Shalini Srivastava v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases