Allowed

FPA-PMLA-2096/LKW/2017 of Madhusudan D. Mehta & Ors. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow

ATFP8 Aug 2019FPA-PMLA-2096/LKW/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal for Enforcement allowed an appeal against the attachment of a property owned by the appellant. The court held that the attachment was based on a mistake by the investigation agency, who erroneously linked payments to a different individual named Indu.

What did the court decide?

The appealed order of attachment of the property is modified, and the property is released forthwith.

FPA-PMLA-2096/LKW/2017 of Madhusudan D. Mehta & Ors. v/s The… — Narcotics (NDPS) | ATFP (2019)

¶1

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

¶2

FPA-PMLA-2096/LKW/2017

¶3

Madhusudan D. Mehta & Ors. … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow … Respondent

¶4

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶5

For the appellant	: Shri Aditya Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent	: Shri Nitesh Rana, Advocate
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	: CHAIRMAN
SHRI G.C. MISHRA	: MEMBER

¶6

ORDER 08.08.2019

¶7

FPA-PMLA-2096/LKW/2017

¶8

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 27^th September, 2017. The following property was attached:

¶9

“2-B/112, Windermere Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Near Green Park, Off New Link Road, Oshiwara, Andheri West, Mumbai-400053.”

¶10

This property is owned by the appellant no. 1. The wife is now deceased. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that due to oversight on behalf of the respondent, the said property was attached. The counsel has referred page 453 para no. 8.3.2 (iii) and 83.2 (v) wherein it was admitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of ED has admitted before the Adjudicating Authority that it was the mistake of the ED at the time of investigation regarding payment to Indu which appears to be different person from the owner of the windmill FPA-PMLA-2096/LKW/2017 Page 1 of 3

¶11

property and conceded to drop the same. The said paras 8.3.2 (iii) to 8.3.2(v) is reproduced hereinbelow:

¶12

“8.3.2 (iii). With respect to Windermere property, the Complainant submitted that his investigation revealed that payment to the tune of Rs. 69 lakhs (vide cheque no. 427070 dated 12/09/07) and Rs. 4 lakhs (vide cheque no. 427095 dated 25/09/07) made by M/s. Balaji Lifestyle Realtors Pvt. Ltd. to Smt. Indu Mehta and that was why the said company could mortgage the property as security for availing funds in its own favour. However, Shri Amitabh Gupta, Authorized Representative of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 stated that the purported payments to „Indu‟ as claimed by the Complainant were not related to Smt. Indu Madhusudan Mehta and Madhusudan Dhiranlal Mehta but to a different Indu Mahendra Shah. He further submitted that since this property is owned by Smt. Indu Madhusudan Mehta and Madhusudan Dhiranlal Mehta and has only been used as a collateral security by the Balaji Group to avail credit facility from Saraswat Bank they do not have any interest in.

¶13

8.3.2 (iv). Ld. Advocate, Mr. Rajshekhar Rao appearing for the Complainant orally accepted this mistake on the part of the investigation regarding payments to Indu which appears to be a different person from the owner of the Windemere property and conceded to drop the same.

¶14

8.3.2 (v) The submissions of Mr. Gupta and Mr. Rao were considered, it remains a fact that Smt. Indu Madhusudan Mehta and Madhusudan Dhiranlal Mehta, the owners of this property had allowed Manoj Punamiya to Mortgage their property and avail loans. From the records available, it is evident that the Mehtas are not in any way related to Punamiya, either by blood or by business. However, it is beyond comprehension as to how a person owning this property has allowed Punamiya to mortgage it to avail credit facilities without having any interest thereof. There appears to be a prima-facie interest of the Mehtas, which made them mortgage allow Manoj Punamiyata mortgage this property with Saraswat Bank. Therefore, I find this property involved in money laundering and confirm attachment of the same.”

¶15

In view of the above the present appeal is allowed. The property is released forthwith by modifying the impugned order.

¶16

FPA-PMLA-2096/LKW/2017

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

No costs.

¶19

The appeal is disposed of.

¶20

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶21

(G.C. Mishra)

¶22

Member

¶23

New Delhi, 8^th August, 2019

¶24

‘D’

¶25

FPA-PMLA-2096/LKW/2017

¶26

Page 3 of 3

FPA-PMLA-2096/LKW/2017 of Madhusudan D. Mehta & Ors. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-2096/LKW/2017 of Madhusudan D. Mehta & Ors. 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