M/S. Sterling Futures & Holidays Ltd vs Deputy Director Directorate Of Enforcement, Chennai

G. C. Mishra, Acting Chairman

MP-PMLA-7625/CHN/2020 (A.G.)

On 24.09.2020, the Respondent was granted six weeks time to file the reply to this application. No reply has been filed. One more opportunity is

granted to the Respondent to file the reply to this application within six weeks with an advance copy to be served on the other side.

FPA-PMLA-3450/CHN/2020

Reply to the appeal has been filed and the same is on record. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the copy of the reply has not

yet been served on the appellant. The learned counsel for the Respondent undertook to serve the same during the course of the day. It is seen from

the order dated 24.09.2020 that the appellant was directed to file copy of the impugned order within six weeks, the same has not yet been filed. The

appellant is directed to file the hard copy of the impugned order within one week and copy of the same also be provided to the learned counsel for the

other side. The learned counsel for the appellant sought three weeks time to file the rejoinder which is not objected. The appellant is granted three

weeks time to file the hard and soft copy of the rejoinder with advance copy to be served on the other side.

Both the parties are directed to file the hard and soft copy of the written submissions by the next date.

MP-PMLA-8219/CHN/2021 (U.A.) & MP-PMLA-7714/CHN/2020 (Stay)

The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking stay of the operation of the impugned order in O.C. No. 1096/2019 dated 13.01.2020

and stay of the operation of Eviction notice issued under Rule 5(2) of the PMLA (Taking possession of attached or frozen properties confirmed by

Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013 in F.No. ECIR/CEZO-1/10/2018 dated 05.02.2021 by the 1st Respondent on the grounds mentioned therein. The

prayer for urgent hearing of the stay application is considered and allowed.

The appellant has filed the aforesaid application bearing no. MP-PMLA-7714/CHN/2020 (Stay) for stay of the impugned order. Six weeks time was

granted to the Respondent on 24.09.2020 to file reply but the same has not yet been filed. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought

four weeks time to file the reply to the stay application which is not objected. Let the same be filed within four weeks with an advance copy to be

served on the other side.

In the meantime, the Respondent has issued eviction notice dated 05.02.2021 to the appellant served on the same date. The detail of the property

mentioned in the eviction notice is as follows:

“S.No. 233, Jagati Mount, Bunglow No. 53, Mall Road, Ranikhet Cantonment, admeasuring 918 Sq. mtrs. Registered vide Sale Deed No.

800 dated 03.12.2005 in the name of Sterling Futures and Holidays Ltd. (SRO-Ranikhet, Almora District, Uttaranchal).â€​

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the property mentioned in the eviction notice is a guest house of the company and the same has

been attached as a value equivalent to the proceeds of crime and that this property has no concern with the alleged crime and that the land on which

the guest house was acquired in the year 2005 and thereafter the guest house was constructed thereon. The guest house is being used for the purpose

of company and that the Respondent has not assigned any reason for the attachment of the property. On the aforesaid grounds, the appellant is

seeking the order of status quo.

On the other hand the learned counsel for the Respondent raised objection for grant of any stay/status quo order. It is submitted that, as per the

statement of guards posted in the guest house, for the past four years the guest house is not being occupied by anybody. However, he submitted that

the Respondent will file appropriate replies to the stay applications within four weeks.

Heard both sides. Considered the material placed on record. It is an admitted fact that the guest house belongs to the appellant company and the same

has been attached as a value equivalent to the proceeds of crime. The appellant has pleaded in MP-PMLA-8219/CHN/2021 at para no. 7 that the

aforesaid property has been taken in possession by the Respondent. After considering the submissions made by both sides, I find that it is a fit case

wherein an interim order of „status quo‟ can be granted. Therefore, both the parties are directed to maintain the „status quo‟ with respect to the

aforesaid property till the next date of hearing. The order of „status quo‟ is subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Attachment shall continue.

(ii) The legal and constructive possession of the property in question shall remain with the Enforcement Directorate;

(iii) The appellant is prohibited to create any third party right or dispose of the property in question in any manner;

(iv) No encumbrance shall be created by the appellant in respect of the said property.

(v) The appellant is directed not to change the nature and character of the property.

With the consent of both the parties, list the matter on 25th May, 2021. The date fixed earlier in the matter i.e. 16th April, 2021 is cancelled.