Disposed

FPA-PMLA-1727/BNG/2017 of Neelkanth Rathod v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore

ATFP12 Feb 2021FPA-PMLA-1727/BNG/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant sought status quo regarding confiscated property under PMLA where he and family resided. Tribunal directed parties to maintain status quo pending hearing to prevent ousting appellant, allowing attachment and ED possession while prohibiting disposal or encumbrance.

What did the court decide?

Status quo order with respect to property maintained; Enforcement Director to retain legal possession; status quo subject to conditions.

FPA-PMLA-1727/BNG/2017 of Neelkanth Rathod Vs. The Deputy… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

MP-PMLA-8185/BNG/2021 (U.H.) MP-PMLA-3352/BNG/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1727/BNG/2017

¶3

Neelkanth Rathod … Appellant/Applicant

¶4

Versus

¶5

The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore

¶6

… Respondent

¶7

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶8

For the Appellant : Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Mohd. Faraz, Adovocate

¶9

CORAM SHRI G. C. MISHRA : ACTING CHAIRMAN

¶10

ORDER

¶11

12.02.2021

¶12

The matter is taken up through video conferencing. The appearance of the learned counsels are as above

¶13

MP-PMLA-8185/BNG/2021 (U.H.)

¶14

The ld. Counsel for the appellant/applicant has filed the present application for urgent listing of the application for stay bearing no. MPPMLA-3352/BNG/2017, on the grounds stated therein.

¶15

Considering the grounds mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The urgent application is accordingly disposed of.

¶16

MP-PMLA-3352/BNG/2017 (Stay)

¶17

The present application has been filed by the appellant/applicant for stay the operation of the order dated 27.02.2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in OC no. 665/2016. The application is coming up on 01^st March, 2021 vide order dated 31.12.2020. In the meantime, the respondent has issued eviction notice dtd. FPA-PMLA-1727/BNG/2017 Page 1 of 4

¶18

03.02.2021 under section 8(4) of PMLA r/w 5(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering (taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority)Rules, 2013, in which the appellant has been directed to vacate and hand over the immovable properties to the respondent within 10 days of the receipt of the eviction notice. The notice, stated to have been received by the appellant on 04.02.2021. The detail of the property is mentioned below:

¶19

Sr. No.	Particulars of the Properties	Value at which the property acquired as per the Registered Deed	In whose name the property stands
1.	A house construed on Site No. 137, 2^nd Stage, Nagarabhavi, 2^nd Block, Yeswanthpur Hobli, Bangalore.	Rs. 53,12,602/-	Shri Neelkantha Rathod.
	(Registered with Senior Sub- Registrar, Naarabavi, vide registration no. 2674/2001- 02 dated 28.05.2001)

¶20

During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appeal is filed in the year 2016 and that the appellant had filed writ petition bearing no. 13160/2017 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore and the Hon’ble High Court was please to pass interim order of Rule nisi vide order dated 04.04.2017 and that the hon’ble court vide its order dated 11.12.2020 dismissed the batch of writ petitions including the writ petition filed by the appellant and that, the full Bench of this Tribunal vide its order dated 11.05.2017 had given liberty to the appellant to move application, if necessary, to press the interim order at any stage. And further submitted by the ld. counsel for the appellant that the property was purchased in the year 2001 and that the appellant and his family members are residing in the said property and that the physical possession of the property is with the appellant. The ld. counsel for the appellant also submits that the appellant has been acquitted in the FPA-PMLA-1727/BNG/2017 Page 2 of 4

¶21

scheduled offence. He further submits that the appellant may be granted an ad-interim order of status quo with respect to the aforesaid property.

¶22

On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer of the ld. counsel for the appellant and submits that he will file the reply to the stay application and he prayed that the appellant has failed to make out a case for grant of an ad-interim order of status quo.

¶23

Heard both sides. It is an admitted case that the physical possession of the property is with the appellant and that there is no denial that the appellant and his family members are residing in the said property and that the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka had stayed all further proceedings and that the full Bench of this Tribunal had given liberty on 11.05.2017 to press for interim order at any stage. Since, the appellant and his family members are admittedly staying in the aforesaid property, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice in the present fact and circumstance of the case to maintain status quo with respect to the aforesaid property. If the order of status quo is not granted at this stage the appellant and his family members would be ousted and would be on street. Therefore, both the parties are directed to maintain the status quo in respect of the property mentioned above till the next date of hearing. The status quo order is subject to the following conditions:-

¶24

i. The attachment shall continue;

¶25

ii. The legal and constructive possession over the property will remain with the Enforcement Directorate;

¶26

iii. The appellant is prohibited to create any third party rights or dispose of the said property in any manner;

¶27

iv. No encumbrance shall be created by appellant in respect of the said property.

¶28

FPA-PMLA-1727/BNG/2017

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

The respondent is granted four weeks time to file the reply to the stay application with an advance copy to the counsel for the appellant.

¶31

Reply in the appeal has been filed by the respondent and the same is on record. The ld. counsel for the appellant seeks three weeks time to file the rejoinder. Let the same be filed within three weeks with an advance copy to the counsel for the respondent.

¶32

With the consent of both the parties list the matter on 25^th May, 2021. The date fixed earlier in the matter i.e. 1^st March, 2021 is cancelled.

¶33

Parties are directed to file the written submission by way of hard as well as soft copy by the next date.

¶34

(G.C. Mishra) Acting Chairman

¶35

New Delhi, 12^th February, 2021

¶36

‘s’

¶37

FPA-PMLA-1727/BNG/2017

¶38

Page 4 of 4

FPA-PMLA-1727/BNG/2017 of Neelkanth Rathod v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1727/BNG/2017 of Neelkanth Rathod v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases