AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. C. Mishra, Acting Chairman
MP-PMLA-8262/GOA/2021 (U.H.)
Vide this application dated 12.02.2021 the applicant/appellant has made an urgent mentioning to hear the application which has been filed on
15.02.2021 by the appellant/applicant for urgent hearing of the matter. Accordingly, the prayer for urgent hearing is considered and allowed by fixing
the case for today. The application is accordingly disposed of.
FPA-PMLA-3890/GOA/2021
Fresh appeal has been filed by the appellant (ED) under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’) against the
order dated 14.12.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi under PMLA, passed in O.C. No.1324/2020.
Upon hearing, issue notice. Mr. Ninad Laud, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent accepts notice. The learned counsel for the respondent
seeks two weeks time to file the reply to the appeal, which is not objected. The learned counsel for the respondent is granted two weeks time, as
requested, to file reply to the appeal with an advance copy to the other side.
With the consent of both the parties, list the appeal on 28th April, 2021.
MP-PMLA-8174/GOA/2021 (Stay)
Along with the appeal the appellant has filed an application seeking ad-interim ex-parte stay on the execution, operation and implementation of the
impugned order dated 14.12.2020.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Original Complaint No.1324/2020 has not been allowed and the Provisional Attachment Order
No.2/2020 dated 02.07.2020 has been set-aside by the Adjudicating Authority and further submits that if the properties in question involved in money
laundering are not remained attached, then the non-attachment of such properties in question are likely to frustrate the proceedings under the PML
Act, 2002.
On the aforesaid grounds, the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has prayed for adâ€"interim stay on the execution, operation and
implementation of the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent strongly raised objection for grant of any stay on the operation of the impugned order and
submitted that the properties in question are not involved in money laundering as ordered by the Adjudicating Authority as the Provisional Attachment
Order is not sustainable and set-aside and prayed that the assets and properties shall not been attached by the appellant again. It is further submitted
by the learned counsel for the respondents that they are in physical possession of the properties.
Heard both sides on the applications for stay of the impugned order dated 14.12.2020. Considering the facts submitted by learned counsels for both the
parties and on perusal of the papers, it appears that the appellant/applicant has a prima facie case for grant of conditional order of ‘status quo’
as on the date of passing of the impugned order till further orders.
The aforesaid order of interim ‘status quo’ is granted subject to the following conditions:-
i. Attachments shall continue and the status of the properties in question on the date of passing of the impugned order would also continue.
ii. The respondents are prohibited to create any third party right, transfer, mortgage or otherwise dispose of the properties in question in any manner.
iii. Neither party is allowed to alter the nature and character of the properties in question, as on today.
iv. No encumbrance shall be created by the respondents in respect of the properties in question.
On request, the respondents are granted two weeks time to file replies to the stay application with an advance copy to the other side.
With the consent of both the parties, list the appeal on 28th April, 2021.