Ketan Mehta vs Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement, Jaipur

G. C. Mishra, Acting Chairman

The matters are taken up through video conferencing. The appearances of the learned counsels are as above.

MP-PMLA-8249/JP/2021 (Modi.) in FPA-PMLA-3899/JP/2021 and MP-PMLA-8250/JP/2021 (Modi.) in FPA-PMLA-3900/JP/2021

The present applications have been filed by the applicants seeking clarifications/modifications of the earlier order dated 10.02.2021 with respect to the

properties mentioned in the respective applications on the grounds stated therein. The details of the properties in each applications are listed below:-

MP-PMLA-8249/JP/2021 (Modi.) (Property as mentioned in this application filed by Ketan Mehta)

(i) Flat No. B-305, 3rd Floor, Shiv Gyan Luxora Building on Plot No. G-2 Rajmahal Scheme, Jamna Lal Bajaj Marg, Jaipur alongwith Servant Room

No. 8, leased out to Ernst & Young LLP for a sum of Rs. 24,000/-per month.

MP-PMLA-8250/JP/2021 (Modi.) (Property as mentioned in this application filed by Kamal Mehta)

(ii) Plot No. 13, New Sanganer Road, J.P. Colony, Jaipur, [Item 1, Table

A of the PAO] which does not figure in the list of properties mentioned in the order dated 10.02.2021 passed by this Tribunal.

The counsel for the appellant submitted that the property mentioned above at Sr. No. (i), the articles of the tenant Ernst & Young LLP are still in the

premises. On the other hand the learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Respondent (ED) has put its lock and that possession has

already been taken by the Respondent under a Panchnama.

With respect to property mentioned above at Sr. No. (ii), the learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that there was a dairy and two-three

buffaloes were there which have been removed by the person concerned and the Respondent has taken possession of this property also.

Heard both sides. There are contrary claims regarding possession from both the sides. Both the parties have agreed to maintain ‘status quo’

with respect to the aforesaid properties. Accordingly both the parties are directed to maintain the ‘status quo’ with respect to the properties

mentioned above till the next date of hearing. Irrespective of the possession over the aforesaid properties, the order of ‘status quo’ is subject to

the following conditions:-

(i) Attachments shall continue.

(ii) Both the parties are prohibited to create any third party right or dispose of the properties in question in any manner;

(iii) No encumbrance shall be created by either parties in respect of the said properties.

(iv) Both the parties are directed not to change the nature and character of the properties.

The learned counsel for the Respondent seeks four weeks time to file the replies to the modification applications, which is not objected. Let the replies

to the same be filed within four weeks with advance copies to be served on the other side.

The appeals and the stay applications have already been posted to 24th May, 2021 for filing replies/rejoinders. With the consent of both the parties,

these applications are also posted to the same date.