Disposed

FPA-PMLA-1945/MUM/2017 of Islamic Research Foundation v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

ATFP8 Jul 2025FPA-PMLA-1945/MUM/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal disposed of an appeal against property attachment confirmation. The appellant did not press the appeal if possession was retained. The court allowed maintenance of status quo and permitted a future application for possession if an exceptional case is made out.

What did the court decide?

Status quo maintained; appeal disposed of. Respondent at liberty to apply for possession if exceptional case made out. Appellant barred from alienating properties.

FPA-PMLA-1945/MUM/2017 of Islamic Research Foundation v… — Writ and Judicial Review | ATFP (2025)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI

¶2

FPA-PMLA-1945/MUM/2017 ISLAMIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai … Respondent

¶3

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who Argued

¶4

For the Appellant: S/Shri S. Hariharan, Kalidharaun KM, Advocates, For the Respondent (ED): Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, Advocate.

¶5

CORAM

¶6

SHRI G. C. MISHRA : MEMBER SHRI RAJESH MALHOTRA : MEMBER

¶7

FINAL ORDER 08.07.2025

¶8

The present appeal u/s 26 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are filed by the appellant against the order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in Original Complaint no.717/ 2017, whereby it confirmed the attachment of properties by ED vide Provisional Attachment Order no.04/2017 dated 20.03.2017.

¶9

The learned counsel for the appellant, on instruction, submits that appellant need not to press the appeal against the attachment of its respective properties, if possession of the properties is not taken by ED, till conclusion of the trial. It is submitted that an order to maintain status quo was passed by this Tribunal on the stay application filed by the appellant. The interim order was passed when no exceptional reason for taking possession was given. The release of properties may be kept subject to the outcome of the trial and as per Section 8(5) to 8(8) of the Act of 2002.

¶10

The learned counsel for the respondent submit that if the attachment of the properties and its confirmation are not questioned rather appellant is not pressing the appeal to question this order, and would be satisfied only if the possession is not taken, this Tribunal may pass an appropriate order on the possession, if it lies with the appellant,

¶11

FPA-PMLA-1945/2017 ISLAMIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. ED Mumbai

¶12

¶13

but it should not either alienate, or, transfer it during the pendency of the trial in the criminal case.

¶14

We have heard the counsel for the parties. The appeal has been preferred to challenge the PAO and its confirmation by the impugned order dated 08.08.2017. The counsel for the appellant, on instruction, submits that his client is not inclined to press the appeal for challenge to the impugned order, if the possession of the properties is not taken. A reference of the interim order passed by the Tribunal has been given and accordingly prayer is made that subject to the outcome of the trial in pursuance to ECIR, let the attached properties be dealt with as per Section 8(5) to 8(8) of the Act of 2002.

¶15

In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2022) SCC Online 929, the possession can be taken under an exceptional case. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of without causing interference in the order of its confirmation passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The parties would, however, maintain status-quo in regard to the possession as is obtaining today, as per the terms and conditions, if any. The appellant would otherwise not alienate or transfer the properties, till conclusion of the trial. Subject to the outcome of the trial and Section 8(5) to 8(8) of the Act of 2002, this order would be governed.

¶16

It is made clear that this order would not be taken adverse to the appellant and any observation in the impugned order would not be binding on the trial court, rather it would pass the order independently and based on the evidence led before it.

¶17

FPA-PMLA-1945/2017 ISLAMIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. ED Mumbai

¶18

¶19