Allowed

FPA-PMLA-1951/LKW/2017 of Shri Umesh Chandra Rai & Anr. v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow

ATFP12 Apr 2019FPA-PMLA-1951/LKW/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of the appeal hearing the challenge against Allahabad High Court order. It directed the tribunal to allow an application for recall of earlier orders and to pass reasoned orders after hearing parties.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is disposed of; opportunity to file recall application provided; Tribunal directed to pass reasoned order within one month after hearing parties.

FPA-PMLA-1951/LKW/2017 of Shri Umesh Chandra Rai & Anr… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | ATFP (2019)

¶1

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

¶2

MP-PMLA-3836/LKW/2017 (Stay)

¶3

¶4

FPA-PMLA-1951/LKW/2017

¶5

Shri Umesh Chandra Rai & Anr.

¶6

… Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Deputy Director, … Respondent Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow

¶9

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶10

For the appellants : None For Respondent : Shri Mohd. Faraz, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER

¶11

ORDER 12.04.2019

¶12

FPA-PMLA-1951/LKW/2017

¶13

The learned counsel for the respondent submitted a plain copy of the order dated 26.03.2019 passed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. He further submitted that the Enforcement Directorate has challenged the orders dated 07.02.2019, 19.02.2019 & 22.02.2019 passed by this Tribunal. We have gone through the said order. The order of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced below:

¶14

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

The First Appeal From Order arises against the orders dated 07.02.2019, 19.02.2019 and 22.02.2019 passed by Appellate Tribunal, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 at New Delhi in FPA-PMLA-1951/LKW/2017 (Umesh Chandra Rai & anr. Vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow Zonal Office, Lucknow).

¶16

FPA-PMLA-1951/LKW/2017

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

The appellant, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow Zonal Office has approached this court challenging the order dated 7.02.2019 passed by the Tribunal on the ground that this order has been passed on the application for expediting the case and order was not communicated to the appellant. Appellant took possession of the attached property from respondents, who never informed the appellant about the order dated 7.02.2019. Thereafter respondents prayed before the Tribunal that their possession may be directed to be restored by the appellant since it has been taken in the teeth of the order dated 7.02.2019.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out to the order dated 19.2.2019 and 22.2.2019 whereby Tribunal has directed the appellant to restore the possession of attached property of the respondents in compliance of the order dated 7.2.2019.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that respondents have not moved any application for restoration of the possession, only on their oral request order has been passed by the Tribunal.

¶21

From the perusal of the order dated 22.2.2019 passed by the Tribunal it appears that respondents have not filed any application but the Tribunal is directing the appellant to restore back the possession to the respondents or appear before the Tribunal for appropriate action in accordance with law

¶22

From perusal of the orders dated 19.2.2019 and 22.2.2019 it appears that respondents have given possession of the property to the appellant and appellant contends that the order dated 7.2.2019 was not communicated and therefore they took possession and respondents also never informed about this order therefore possession was taken bonafidely of the attached property of the respondents.

¶23

Considering overall facts, the court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by issuing notice to the respondents.

¶24

This appeal is disposed of granting opportunity to the appellant to file recall application before the Tribunal for recall of the order dated 7.2.2019 and subsequent order dated 19.2.2019 and 22.2.2019 passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to pass reasoned and speaking order on the application of the applicant within one month from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before it after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law.

¶25

In the meantime no coercive action shall be taken again the appellant or its officer by the Tribunal.”

¶26

FPA-PMLA-1951/LKW/2017

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

It is felt proper to note here that when the matter was taken up on 05^th March, 2019, the learned counsel for the respondent, in the presence of Investigating Officer (I.O.), sought one week time to comply the orders. Undertaking was given by the I.O. was accepted on the said date. The learned counsel for the respondent, in reply to our query, stated that he is not aware whether the order dated 05.03.2019 was brought to the notice of Hon’ble Court. Had the order of this Tribunal dated 05.03.2019 brought to the notice of the Hon’ble High Court then the matter would have been considered in a different way.

¶29

List on 26^th April, 2019.

¶30

Copy of the order be given „dasti‟ to both the parties.

¶31

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶32

(G.C. Mishra) Member

¶33

New Delhi,

¶34

12^th April, 2019

¶35

‘A’

¶36

FPA-PMLA-1951/LKW/2017

¶37

Page 3 of 3

FPA-PMLA-1951/LKW/2017 of Shri Umesh Chandra Rai & Anr. v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1951/LKW/2017 of Shri Umesh Chandra Rai & Anr. v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow

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