Dismissed

FPA-PMLA-2330/JP/2018 of Smt. Annapurna Heda & Anr. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Jaipur

ATFP11 Jul 2019FPA-PMLA-2330/JP/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of an appeal filed under Section 26 of the PMLA by the mother of actual owners and a tenant regarding property attachment. It held the appeal not maintainable as the appellant was not the owner of the attached property, dismissing the matter without costs.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with no order be done on costs.

FPA-PMLA-2330/JP/2018 of Smt. Annapurna Heda & Anr. v/s The… — Property and Title | ATFP (2019)

¶1

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

¶2

MP-PMLA-4528/JP/2018 (Stay) MP-PMLA-4529/JP/2018 (Exem.) MP-PMLA-4530/JP/2018 (COD)

¶3

¶4

FPA-PMLA-2330/JP/2018

¶5

Smt. Annapurna Heda & Anr. … Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Jaipur

¶8

… Respondent

¶9

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶10

For the Appellants	: Shri Achintya Dvivedi, Advocate
For the Respondent	: Shri Atul Tripathi, Advocate
CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	: CHAIRMAN

¶11

ORDER 11.07.2019

¶12

FPA-PMLA-2330/JP/2018, MP-PMLA-4528/JP/2018 (Stay), MP-PMLA4529/JP/2018 (Exem.) & MP-PMLA-4530/JP/2018 (COD)

¶13

The appellant has challenged the appeal filed under Section 26 of the

¶14

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the order dated 6^th October, 2017. The appellants namely Smt. Annapurna Heda and one Mr. Sampat Kanwar have filed the present appeal. It is admitted position that the attached property owned by Shri Ashish Heda and Shri Nishant Heda who are the owner of the said property, they are involved in the scheduled offence under the PMLA as well as their father. No appeal has been filed by the owner of the property. Smt. Annapurna Heda is the mother of Nishant and Ashish. Mr. Sampat Kanwar is the tenant of the said property. It is also

¶15

FPA-PMLA-2330/JP/2018

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

admitted position that the husband of Annapurna Heda i.e. Shri Rameshwar Lal Heda is also involved in the offences. The tenant has also not challenged the impugned order. The suggestion is given to the learned Counsel for the appellant that the impugned order should be challenged by the aggrieved party only in accordance with law. No valid positive answer is given. As far as the present appeal is concerned, since the appellant is not the owner of the property, the appeal is not maintainable. The same is dismissed.

¶18

No costs.

¶19

Order be given ‘ dasti’ to both the parties.

¶20

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶21

New Delhi, 11^th July, 2019

¶22

‘r’

¶23

FPA-PMLA-2330/JP/2018

¶24

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-2330/JP/2018 of Smt. Annapurna Heda & Anr. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Jaipur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-2330/JP/2018 of Smt. Annapurna Heda & Anr. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Jaipur

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