Disposed

FPA-PMLA-3017/BNG/2019 of Dr. v. Anuradha v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore

ATFP5 Dec 2019FPA-PMLA-3017/BNG/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Actix Tribunal stayed the status quo order of 6 May 2019 to continue it subject to the High Court of Karnataka's interim order regarding property possession, directed parties to file reports and fixed hearing date.

What did the court decide?

Status quo order to continue subject to High Court order; further hearing listed for 21 May 2020.

FPA-PMLA-3017/BNG/2019 of Dr. v. Anuradha v/s The Deputy… — Property and Title | ATFP (2019)

¶1

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

¶2

1. FPA-PMLA-3017/BNG/2019
Dr. V. Anuradha	…	Appellant/Applicant
Versus
The Deputy Director
Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore	…	Respondent
2. FPA-PMLA-3018/BNG/2019
Dr. Nikhil S. P.	…	Appellant/Applicant
Versus
The Deputy Director
Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore	…	Respondent
3. FPA-PMLA-3019/BNG/2019
Shri S. K. Paramesh	…	Appellant/Applicant
Versus
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore	…	Respondent

¶3

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶4

For the Appellants	: Shri Abid Jeelani, proxy counsel
For the Respondent	: Mr. S. K. Sharma, Advocate
CORAM
SHRI G.C. MISHRA	: ACTING CHAIRMAN

¶5

ORDER 05.12.2019

¶6

FPA-PMLA-3017-3018-3019/BNG/2019

¶7

Shri Abid Jilani, Associate of the main counsel appeared in the matter. Shri S.K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent is present. It is seen from the record that on 6^th May, 2019 status quo order was passed on the ground that the notice under section 8(4) has already been stayed by the Hon’ble High Court, Karnataka. On perusal of application for stay it is seen at para no. 3 of the said application that

¶8

FPA-PMLA-3017-3018-3019/BNG/2019

¶9

Page 1 of 2

¶10

Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka vide their interim order dated 26^th March, 2019 has directed respondent no. 1 not to take the possession of the property of the petitioner till the next date of hearing.

¶11

The learned counsel for both the parties could not apprised the last or next date of hearing, about the extension of the said order, by the Hon’ble High Court.

¶12

In the circumstances, status quo order already passed vide order dated 6^th May, 2019 to continue subject to the continuity of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court. The parties are directed to file status report alongwith the copy of latest report of the case filed before Hon’ble High Court.

¶13

The reply is not on record. The learned counsel for the respondent seeking four weeks time to file the reply. Let the same be filed within four weeks with an advance copy to the counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder four weeks thereafter. The parties are allowed to file the written synopsis by the next date.

¶14

List on 21^st May, 2020.

¶15

(G.C. Mishra) Acting Chairman

¶16

New Delhi, 5^th December, 2019

¶17

‘D’

¶18

FPA-PMLA-3017-3018-3019/BNG/2019

¶19

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-3017/BNG/2019 of Dr. v. Anuradha v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-3017/BNG/2019 of Dr. v. Anuradha v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore

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