Partly allowed

FPA-PMLA-2331/CHD/2018 of Smt. Leela Kirpal v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh

ATFP12 Sept 2024FPA-PMLA-2331/CHD/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals filed by family members against an order retaining seized documents and properties. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for lack of locus standi regarding property title and validity of retention, but allowed the appellant to access seized documents now required for prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as devoid of merits; however, appellants directed to receive copies of relied-upon seized documents.

FPA-PMLA-2331/CHD/2018 of Smt. Leela Kirpal Vs. The Deputy… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2024)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI

¶2

1. FPA-PMLA-2331/CHD/2018
Smt. Leela Kirpal	…	Appellant
2. FPA-PMLA-2100/CHD/2017
Mr. Aman Kirpal	…	Appellant
3. FPA-PMLA-2101/CHD/2017
Ms. Ashna Kirpal	…	Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Director,
Directorate of Enforcement, Chan	digarh …	Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Represe For the Appellant :	ntatives who argued Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Ms. Madhvi Khandel	Adv. Adv. wal, Adv.
For the Respondent :	Mr. Arjun Sawhney, Mr. Rohan Bhambri,	Adv. Adv.
CORAM
SHRI G.C. MISHRA	: ME	MBER
SHRI RAJESH MALHOTRA	: ME	MBER

¶3

FINAL ORDER 12.09.2024

¶4

Dictated by: Rajesh Malhotra

¶5

Present appeals u/s 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering

¶6

Act, 2002, is filed by the appellants against the impugned order dated 12.09.2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in Original Application No. 93/2017, whereby it allowed the respondent ED to retain/seize/freeze the documents, digital records, bank accounts etc., seized from the premises of various persons including the present appellants, during the search conducted on 07.04.2017.

¶7

In the present appeals, Ld. Counsel for appellants submitted that appeals have been filed by Smt. Leela Kirpal, Mr. Aman Kirpal & Ms. Ashna Kirpal. He submitted that the present appellants are the family members of the alleged accused Mr. Gaurav Kirpal and

¶8

¶9

FPA-PMLA-2331/CHD/2018, FPA-PMLA-2100 & 2101/CHD/2017 Smt. Leela Kirpal, Mr. Aman Kirpal & Ms. Ashna Kirpal v. E.D., Chandigarh

¶10

hold bank accounts in their names and are not participating in any business of the family. The details of the bank account and locker

¶11

held by the appellants are as under:

¶12

S.	Bank Name	Appellant	A/c No.	Amount
No.
1.	Indian Overseas Bank	Ashna Kirpal	24011000031110	0.00

¶13

One Bank Locker bearing Key No. 218 in the name of Smt. Leela Kirpal having Gold Set belonging to Smt. Leela Kirpal valuing approx. 5-10 Lacs.

¶14

Further, Ld. Counsel for the appellants stressed for release of property of appellant Leela Kirpal, stated to be purchased by her vide Villa buyer agreement dated 26.11.2012 Annexure A-4 at page 242 to 254 of the appeal paper book. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant Leela Kirpal is the owner of property at Villa 14A, Janpath Estate, Canal Road, Ludhiana, however, the said property is seized by respondent ED under the misconception that this particular property is co-owned by Gaurav Kirpal, Aman Kirpal and Bhawna Kirpal. He argued that no notice was served to appellant Leela Kirpal.

¶15

Regarding Aman Kirpal, it has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants that he is not named as accused in CBI but accused in ED complaint case, while, Smt. Leela Kirpal and Ms. Ashna Kirpal have not been named either in CBI or ED complaint case. Prayer is accordingly made to allow the present appeals and thereby direct the respondent ED to release the said bank account, locker and property from any seizure.

¶16

¶17

FPA-PMLA-2331/CHD/2018, FPA-PMLA-2100 & 2101/CHD/2017 Smt. Leela Kirpal, Mr. Aman Kirpal & Ms. Ashna Kirpal v. E.D., Chandigarh

¶18

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for respondent ED submitted that the family members of the appellants along with other coaccused persons committed the fraud with Syndicate Bank to the tune of Rs. 321 crores. He pointed out that appellant Smt. Leela Kirpal has not filed the sale deed before this Appellate Tribunal to verify the true facts. Appellant is relying upon agreement to sell dated 26.11.2012. The said agreement does not confer any ownership right over the said property, and hence, the present appeal needs to be dismissed for want of locus standi. He further argued that even otherwise the said property is cited in the list of properties for the purpose of confiscation, in case of conviction of the accused persons in prosecution complaint under PMLA case pending before Ld. Special Judge, PMLA Court.Prayer is accordingly made to dismiss the present appeal being devoid of any merits.

¶19

After hearing the rival submissions, we have given our thoughtful consideration to the same. Appellant Smt. Leela Kirpal has not taken the plea that sale deed (if any), in her favour is taken away by respondent ED during the search conducted on 07.04.2017. Even she has not filed any proof of payment of sale consideration qua the said Villa No. 14A, Janpath Estate, Canal Road, Ludhiana and the source of said payment. In absence of any sale deed in her favour, she has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order dated 12.09.2017. Moreover, the said retention order to continue the seizing/ freezing of the documents and material is passed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority, till the completion of investigation. After the completion of investigation, prosecution

¶20

FPA-PMLA-2331/CHD/2018, FPA-PMLA-2100 & 2101/CHD/2017 Smt. Leela Kirpal, Mr. Aman Kirpal & Ms. Ashna Kirpal v. E.D., Chandigarh

¶21

¶22

complaint is already filed by respondent ED, wherein present appellant Smt. Leela Kirpal and Aman Kirpal along with other family members are arrayed as accused persons, though, Ashna Kirpal. Even otherwise, the aforesaid property is mentioned in the list of properties for the purpose of confiscation in case of conviction, in prosecution complaint case under PMLA. Therefore, the impugned order passed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority was just an interim order/step to protect the same, till the conclusion of trial. Therefore, we are not satisfied with the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and hence, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merits.

¶23

However, seeing the fact that prosecution complaint is already filed, the present appellantsare entitled to the copies of all relied upon documents/seized material and they have right to apply for release of all un-relied documents (if any), if the same are not required for any further investigation.

¶24

In sequel to our observation in the preceding para, the present appeal is hereby disposed of with direction. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. It is made clear that nothing expressed herein will affect the merits of prosecution case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

¶25

Appeal Disposed of with Direction.

¶26

Pronounced on this 12^th Day of September, 2024.

¶27

(Rajesh Malhotra) (G.C. Mishra) Member Member ‘AB’

FPA-PMLA-2331/CHD/2018 of Smt. Leela Kirpal v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-2331/CHD/2018 of Smt. Leela Kirpal v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh

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