AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
MP-PMLA-8378/JP/2021 (U.A.) in FPA-PMLA-3945/JP/2021
The above mentioned application has been filed by the appellant for urgent hearing of the application on the grounds mentioned therein. The same is
considered and allowed. Accordingly, the urgent application is disposed of.
FPA-PMLA-3945/JP/2021 and MP-PMLA-8379/JP/2021 (Stay) in FPA-PMLA-3945/JP/2021
Fresh appeal has been filed under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the order dated 13.01.2021 and corrigendum
order dated 05.02.2021 in respect of all properties in Table-B and Property S.No. 1 of Table-C of PAO No. 04/2020 dated 20.07.2020 passed by
Adjudicating Authority in O.C. No. 1332/2020.
Upon hearing, issue notice. Ms. Neeha Nagpal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent seeks four weeks time to file the reply to the appeal as
well as to the stay application. Let the same be filed within four weeks with an advance copy to be served on the other side.
Along with appeal, the appellant has filed stay application seeking stay of the operation of the Order dated 13.01.2021 and of the corrigendum order
dated 05.02.2021 passed by Adjudicating Authority in O.C. No. 1332/2020 in respect to all properties in Table-B and Property S.No. 1 of Table-C of
PAO No. 04/2020 dated 20.07.2020 and it is submitted that if the order of status quo is not passed then the property may be disposed of or dealt with
otherwise by the respondents and the very purpose of filing the appeal would be frustrated. Therefore, it is prayed by him that interim order of status
quo with respect to the properties in Table B and property at Table-C of PAO No. 04/2020 dated 20.07.2020 may be passed.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent accepted the notice and sought four weeks time to file reply to the stay application, which is
not objected.
Heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties during the course of hearing. The learned counsel for the appellant has made me
visited the impugned order. During the course of hearing, he has referred to certain paragraphs particularly the paras at internal page nos. 444 & 483
of the impugned order and also considered the apprehension of the appellant.
Considering the above, I find that the appellant has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim order of status quo till the next date of hearing.
Both the parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to aforesaid properties till the next date of hearing.
The aforesaid order of status quo is also coupled with following directions:
i. The respondent is prohibited to create any third party right or dispose of the properties in question in any manner;
ii. No encumbrance shall be created by the respondent in respect of the said properties.
iii. The respondent is directed not to change the nature and character of the properties.
With the consent of both the parties, list the appeal and stay application on 29th July, 2021.