Quashed

FPA-PMLA-856/CHN/2015 of Dr. V.M. Ganesan v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

ATFP8 Jan 2020FPA-PMLA-856/CHN/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Acting Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal vacated a stay order dated 04.06.2015 that prevented dispossession of appellants from residential premises, citing non-compliance with payment directions by the High Court of Madras. The order directed the appellants to pay outstanding use and occupation charges with arrears.

What did the court decide?

Vacating the stay order on dispossession; directing the appellant to pay use and occupation charges with arrears.

FPA-PMLA-856/CHN/2015 of Dr. V.M. Ganesan v/s The Deputy… — Property and Title | ATFP (2020)

¶1

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

¶2

1. MP-PMLA-3143/CHN/2017 (A.D.) MP-PMLA-1745/CHN/ 2015 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-856/CHN/2015 Dr. V.M. Ganesan … Appellant/Applicant 2. MP-PMLA-3144/CHN/2017 (A.D.) MP-PMLA-1746/CHN/ 2015 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-857/CHN/2015 Dr. G. Thirumal … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent

¶3

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶4

For the Appellant	: Ms. T. Archana, Proxy counsel for Mr. R. Sharath, Advocate
For the Respondent	: Mr. Neeraj Atri, Advocate
CORAM SHRI G.C. MISHRA	: ACTING CHAIRMAN
	ORDER 08.01.2020

¶5

FPA-PMLA-856 & 857/CHN/2015

¶6

Ms. T. Archana, proxy counsel is present on behalf of Sh. R. Sarath, ld. counsel for the appellants. Mr. Neeraj Atri ld. counsel for the respondent is also present.

¶7

The ld. counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention to the order dt. 29.04.2019 passed by Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the matter of C.M.A. No. 1451 of 2015 & M.P. No. 1 of 2015

¶8

FPA-PMLA-856 to857/CHN/2015

¶9

Page 1 of 4

¶10

filed by Dr. V.M. Ganesh. The said order was passed by Hon’ble High Court on the aforesaid appeal challenging the conditional interim order dt. 04.06.2015 passed by full bench of this Tribunal. The order dt. 04.06.2015 is re-produced below:

¶11

“

¶12

ORDER 04.06.2015

¶13

MP-PMLA-1745/CHN/2015

¶14

This is an application seeking stay of dispossession of the applicant from the property measuring 2625 Sq. Ft. land and building in Door No. 248, Karkana street, Meyanur village, Salem.

¶15

The advance notice of the application was given to the counsel for the respondent, however, the counsel for the respondent is not present. Even no official of the Enforcement Directorate is present. In the circumstances, we have not option but to accept allegation made on behalf of the appellant.

¶16

The appellant/applicant has contended that the applicant Dr. V.M. Ganesan with his wife is staying in the premises and she is in a family way.

¶17

The counsel for the applicant on instruction has also contended that the appellant and his wife does not have any other reasonable suitable residential accommodation. In case the applicant shall be evicted from the premises, the appellant and his family member shall be on the road and the inconvenience caused to the appellant shall be much more in the facts and circumstances. Consequently the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant in case of dispossession. The applicant shall also suffer irreparable loss in the circumstance. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the counsel for the appellant seeks an adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel is busy in the matter at Dawarka Court. He states that the similar matter are coming up on 31^st July, 2015. Request is made to have this matter also on 31^st July, 2015. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the charges for use and occupation of the premises in respect of which the notice for eviction has been issued shall be about Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000 per month, however, nothing has been produced to show as what would be the reasonable charges for use and occupation of such premises.

¶18

In the circumstances dispossession of the appellant and his family members from the said premises comprising 2625 Sq. Ft. land and building in Door No. 248, karkana street, Meyanur village, Salem is stayed on the applicant depositing charges at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month from February, 2015. The arrear of charges be deposited by 15^th July, 2015.

¶19

At this juncture Mr. N.K. Matta, Advocate appears and accepts notice of application and seeks time to file the reply. Reply be filed within four weeks with an advance copy to the counsel for the applicant.

¶20

FPA-PMLA-856 to857/CHN/2015

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

Rejoinder, if any, be filed by two working days before the next date of hearing.

¶23

List on 23^rd July, 2015

¶24

Future charges for use and occupation of the premises be also deposited by 15^th day of subsequent English Calendar month. The amounts deposited by the applicant be kept in a fixed deposit for such amount for such period as may be deemed appropriate by the respondent. The respondent shall keep fixed deposit receipt alive during the pendency of the appeal. The amount so deposited along with interest shall be subject to outcome of the present appeal.

¶25

The applicant shall not create any 3^rd party right encumbrance or transfer possession of property in any manner during the pendency of the appeal.

¶26

List on 23^rd July, 2015.

¶27

The aforesaid order was challenged before Hon’ble High Court of

¶28

Madras and the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to passed the following order of dismissal:-

¶29

“…………………………

¶30

………………………………….. 31. Considering the facts and circumstances, there is no ground to interfere with the order. Hence, order made in MP-PMLA-1745/CHN/2015 in FPa-PMLA-856/CHN/2015, dated 04.06.2015, is sustained. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Arrears of amount, as ordered in MP-PMLA1745/CHN/2015 in FPA-PMLA-856/CHN/2015, dated 04.06.2015, to be deposited within two months, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Appellant shall continue to deposit, as ordered.”

¶31

The said order was received on 11.09.2019 by this Tribunal. As per the operative portion of the said judgment, the order dt. 04.06.2015 was to be complied by the appellant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the aforesaid order of Hon’ble High Court. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant has complied the order dated 04.06.2015. The order was received on 11.09.2019 and the two month time granted by Hon’ble High Court has already been expired.

¶32

In view of the above, the stay order dt. 04.06.2015 is vacated due to non compliance of order of this Tribunal and the order of Hon’ble High Court of Madras. However, the use and occupation charges which has not been paid by the appellant as directed by this Tribunal vide order

¶33

FPA-PMLA-856 to857/CHN/2015

¶34

Page 3 of 4

¶35

dated 04.06.2015 is to be complied by the appellant and he has to make

¶36

the payment of use and occupation charges with arrear till date.

¶37

Pleadings are complete.

¶38

Common written synopsis on behalf of the respondent has already

¶39

been filed.

¶40

List the appeals for hearing on 27^th July, 2020.

¶41

(G.C. Mishra) Acting Chairman

¶42

New Delhi, 8^th January, 2020

¶43

‘s ’

¶44

FPA-PMLA-856 to857/CHN/2015

¶45

Page 4 of 4

FPA-PMLA-856/CHN/2015 of Dr. V.M. Ganesan v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-856/CHN/2015 of Dr. V.M. Ganesan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases