Dismissed

FPA-PMLA-2870/CHN/2019 of Bhoopesh Kumar Jain v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

ATFP11 Feb 2019FPA-PMLA-2870/CHN/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing fresh appeals under the PMLA by the appellants and disposed of the pending appeals. The court accepted the respondent's request for time to file a reply. An interim order maintaining the status quo of one attached property was passed until the next hearing on applications from the appellants.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay allowed. Impugned order suspended. Interim order passed to maintain status quo of attached property without creating third-party interests.

FPA-PMLA-2870/CHN/2019 of Bhoopesh Kumar Jain v/s The Deputy… — Narcotics (NDPS) | ATFP (2019)

¶1

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

¶2

(1) MP-PMLA-5581/CHN/2019 (E.H.) MP-PMLA-5582/CHN/2019 (Stay) MP-PMLA-5583/CHN/2019 (COD) FPA-PMLA-2868/CHN/2019 M/s. Kanishk Gold Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent (2) MP-PMLA-5584/CHN/2019 (E.H.) MP-PMLA-5585/CHN/2019 (Stay) MP-PMLA-5586/CHN/2019 (Exem.) MP-PMLA-5587/CHN/2019 (Exem.) MP-PMLA-5588/CHN/2019 (COD) FPA-PMLA-2869/CHN/2019 Neeta Jain … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent

¶3

(3) MP-PMLA-5589/CHN/2019 (E.H.) MP-PMLA-5590/CHN/2019 (Stay) MP-PMLA-5591/CHN/2019 (Exem.) MP-PMLA-5592/CHN/2019 (Exem.) MP-PMLA-5593/CHN/2019 (COD) FPA-PMLA-2870/CHN/2019 Bhoopesh Kumar Jain … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent

¶4

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶5

For the appellant	: Shri Naveen Malhotra, Advocate
For the respondent	: Shri Nitesh Rana, Advocate
CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	: CHAIRMAN

¶6

FPA-PMLA-2868-2870/CHN/2019

¶7

Page 1 of 3

¶8

ORDER 11.02.2019

¶9

FPA-PMLA-2868-2870/CHN/2019

¶10

Fresh appeals have been filed by the above-mentioned appellants under section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the impugned order dated 29^th November, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Alongwith the appeals an application for condonation of delay has also been filed. The same is condoned. M.P. is disposed of.

¶11

Issue notice in the appeal and as well as in the stay application. Mr. Rana, accepts the notice on behalf of the respondent who seeks some time to file the reply. Let the same be filed within six weeks with an advance copy to the counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder four weeks thereafter.

¶12

The learned counsel for the appellant is pressing for interim order.

¶13

The Interim order with regard to one property which is as under:

¶14

Sl.	Property Details	In the name	Document	No.	Market Value
No.		of	And Value	(In	(In Rs.)
			Rs.) as	per
			Document
1.	Flat No. F, 6^thFloor,	Shri	Registered	vide	Rs.
	Block No. 2,of the	Bhoopesh	Document	No.	13,61,70,000
	Building known as	Kumar Jain	316/2011
	“The Art” along with		dated
	1/21 UDS in land		06.04.2011	for
	comprised in R.s.		a	sale
	No. 565/5 and		consideratio	n
	567/34, 565/1,		Rs.
	565/2, 566/1,		1,62,39,800

¶15

FPA-PMLA-2868-2870/CHN/2019

¶16

Page 2 of 3

¶17

567/1, 564/2, and available
559/2, 560/4 in within the
Block No. 33 of jurisdiction of
Nungambakkam, Joint II Sub
Chennai-600 034 Registrar,
Thousand
Lights,
Chennai

¶18

Counsel for the appellant state that the said attached property is not mortgaged with the bank and his client undertakes that they shall not create any third-party including Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. His submissions that family is residing in the said property, the same was purchased in 2011 by virtue of sale deed. Let the undertakings by way of affidavit on behalf of appellant within four weeks not to create any third party interest in the above mentioned parties. The prayer is opposed by Mr. Rana. Heard both parties, I am of view that till the next date, ‘status quo’ shall be maintained by the parties with regard to the abovementioned attached properties. It is stated by Mr. Malhotra, the learned counsel for the appellant that symbolic possession is already been taken by placing the signed board of the property.

¶19

List on 15^th July, 2019.

¶20

Copy of the order be given ‘dasti’ to both the parties.

¶21

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶22

New Delhi, 11^th February, 2019

¶23

‘D’

¶24

FPA-PMLA-2868-2870/CHN/2019

¶25

Page 3 of 3

FPA-PMLA-2870/CHN/2019 of Bhoopesh Kumar Jain v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-2870/CHN/2019 of Bhoopesh Kumar Jain v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

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