Allowed

FPA-PMLA-2327/DLI/2018 of Manyank Jain, Sms It Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

ATFP4 Nov 2019FPA-PMLA-2327/DLI/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench of the Appellate Tribunal for SAFA/M/FEMA/PMLA/NDPS & PBPT disposed of a review application filed under section 35(2)(f) of the PMLA. The application sought to revisit an earlier order that had disposed of an appeal against the retention of seized documents.

What did the court decide?

The review application is allowed; the documents seized vide panchnama dated 3rd October, 2017 are to be retained by the respondent.

FPA-PMLA-2327/DLI/2018 of Manyank Jain, Sms It Solutions Pvt… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2019)

¶1

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

¶2

MP-PMLA-5907/DLI/2019 (Review) MP-PMLA-4525/DLI/2018 (Stay) MP-PMLA-4526/DLI/2018

¶3

¶4

FPA-PMLA-2327/DLI/2018

¶5

Manyank Jain, SMS IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant/Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

¶8

… Respondent

¶9

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶10

For the appellant : Shri Shiv Chopra, Advocate Shri Mayank Mishra, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Nitesh Rana, Advocate

¶11

CORAM SHRI G.C. MISHRA : ACTING CHAIRMAN

¶12

ORDER

¶13

04.11.2019

¶14

MP-PMLA-5907/DLI/2019 (Review)

¶15

The appeal was disposed of vide order dated 3^rd December, 2018.

¶16

The said order reads as follows:

¶17

“ORDER

¶18

03.12.2018

¶19

FPA-PMLA-2327/DLI/2018

¶20

The respondent has filed the Affidavit of Mr. Prem Malik, Deputy Director, stating that the premises situated at 4-A, Hailey Road, New Delhi-110001 is not under the lock or restraint of any kind by the Enforcement Directorate.

¶21

The Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order be set aside against the appellant in view of the Affidavit filed by the respondent. The order is passed accordingly.

¶22

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.”

¶23

FPA-PMLA-2327/DLI/2018

¶24

Page 1 of 3

¶25

The aforesaid order was passed in view of the affidavit filed by the respondent. After the aforesaid order dated 3^rd December, 2018, an application under section 35(2)(f) of the PMLA has been filed on behalf of the respondent to review the order dated 3^rd December, 2018 on the following facts and terms:

¶26

“3. That the brief fact of the present appeal as mentioned in the Original Application is as follows:

¶27

(a) A case bearing FIR No. RC 08(A)/2017 AC-III was registered by the BCI/AC-111, New Delhi on 30.08.2017 under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) PC Act primarily against M/S Sterling Biotech Limited.

¶28

(b) On the basis of the above said FIR, the Directorate of Enforcement registered an ECIR bearing number ECIR/HQ/15/2017 dated 31.08.2017. during the course of investigation in the aforesaid ECIR, one Gagan Dhawan was suspected to be involved in obtaining, handling, transferring and/or investigating in real estate etc. on behalf of all accused persons as per FIR of the CBI.

¶29

(c ) Further, during the investigation in aforementioned ECIR, searches were conducted at the residential premises of Sh. Gagan Dhawan i.e. at C-8, 8309 & 8311, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi on 03.09.2017 and certain incriminating documents and digital evidences were seized from his premises.

¶30

(d) It was learnt from reliable sources that Sh. Gagan Dhawan regularly used to hold meetings at the property in question i.e. 4-A, Hailey Road, New Delhi alongwith his other business partner such as Mr. Kshitiz Agarwal & with other key persons for their ulterior motives and personal benefits.

¶31

(e ) Further, it was gathered from the reliable sources that Sh. Gagan Dhawan used/uses this address for illegitimate business related activities which included illegal dealing in cash transactions for the concealment of the proceeds of crime which was/is suspected to be connected with ECIR/HQ/15/2017.

¶32

(f) In view of the above facts, searched the Respondent conducted in the respective sections of the property situated at 4-A, Hailey Road, New Delhi i.e. in question and certain documents and digital evidences were recovered vide panchnama dated 03.10.2017.

¶33

FPA-PMLA-2327/DLI/2018

¶34

Page 2 of 3

¶35

(g) That the respondent, thereafter, preferred an application under Section 17(4) of the Act before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority with a prayer to retain the documents recovered vide panchnama dated 03.10.2017. The said Application was allowed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 27.12.2017. As aggrieved by the order dated 27.12.2017 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal under Section 26 of the PMLA, 2002.”

¶36

No reply in writing has been filed by the appellant/non applicant.

¶37

The matter is heard.

¶38

It is contended by the learned counsel for the

¶39

respondent/petitioner that some documents as far the Panchnama dated 3^rd October, 2017 has been seized. The premises has not been seized and premises has been possession of the appellant/non-applicant. Without prejudice there is no objection from the side of the appellant/nonapplicant that the documents seized under the Panchnama/seizure list is retained by respondent/petitioner for their investigations. In view of the above order dated 3^rd December, 2018 review application is allowed that the documents seized Panchnama dated 3^rd October, 2017 be retained by the respondent/petitioner. The application is accordingly disposed of.

¶40

(G.C. Mishra) Acting Chairman

¶41

New Delhi, 4^th November, 2019

¶42

‘D’

¶43

FPA-PMLA-2327/DLI/2018

¶44

Page 3 of 3

FPA-PMLA-2327/DLI/2018 of Manyank Jain, Sms It Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-2327/DLI/2018 of Manyank Jain, Sms It Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Assistant 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases