Disposed

FPA-PMLA-3119/LKW/2019 of Sandeep Tandon & Anr. v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow

ATFP15 Jul 2019FPA-PMLA-3119/LKW/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Adjudicating Authority granted two weeks to explain delay in filing an appeal under Section 26 of the PML Act, 2002. An interim status quo order was passed pending adjudication, noting the appellant purchased the property long before the alleged offence, suggesting funds were not proceeds of crime.

What did the court decide?

Time granted to explain delay; status quo maintained on property pending adjudication.

FPA-PMLA-3119/LKW/2019 of Sandeep Tandon & Anr. v/s The Deputy… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2019)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-6199/LKW/2019 (Stay) MP-PMLA-6200/LKW/2019 (COD) MP-PMLA-6201/LKW/2019 (Exem.) FPA-PMLA-3119/LKW/2019

¶3

Sandeep Tandon & Anr. … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow … Respondent

¶4

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶5

For the Appellants : Mr. Satish Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. S. K. Sharma, Advocate

¶6

CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN

¶7

ORDER

¶8

15.07.2019

¶9

FPA-PMLA-3119/LKW/2019 & MP-PMLA-6200/LKW/2019 (COD)

¶10

Fresh appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 26 of PML Act, 2002 against the order dated 31^st August, 2018. Alongwith the appeal the application for condonation of delay has also been filed. Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate on behalf of the respondent states that there is delay of more than 300 days. Therefore, the respondent is opposing the prayer made in the application. It is pertinent to mention that in the application for condonation of delay the statement has been made to condone the delay of 46 days. The appellant is granted two weeks time to file the additional affidavit explaining all the facts. The reply to the application be filed within four weeks with an advance copy to the counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder four weeks thereafter.

¶11

List this matter on 23^rd September, 2019.

¶12

FPA-PMLA-3119/LKW/2019

¶13

Page 1 of 2

¶14

Counsel for the appellants in the meanwhile pressing for status quo order. It is stated by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that despite of having knowledge, the appellants were not made parties before the Adjudicating Authority. It is stated that on 17^th February, 1999 the shops in question were purchased by the appellant. The date of alleged offence was many years subsequent to the purchase of said shops which were not acquired from the proceed of crime.

¶15

In view thereof in the meanwhile, status quo shall be maintained by both the parties in view of the notice issued under Section 8(4) of the Act.

¶16

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶17

New Delhi, 15^th July, 2019.

¶18

‘K’

¶19

FPA-PMLA-3119/LKW/2019

¶20

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-3119/LKW/2019 of Sandeep Tandon & Anr. v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-3119/LKW/2019 of Sandeep Tandon & Anr. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases