Priyank Joshi vs Deputy Director Directorate Of Enforcement, Jaipur & Ors

MP-PMLA-8483/JP/2021 (U.A.)

In view of the issuance of notice dated 08.03.2021 for taking possession of the immovable property mentioned in the notice, the appellant/applicant has

filed the urgent application on dated 18.03.2021 for urgent listing of the application for stay on the operation of the impugned eviction notice. The

prayer for urgent hearing is considered and allowed by fixing the case for today. The urgent application is disposed of accordingly.

MP-PMLA-8482/JP/2021 (Stay) & FPA-PMLA-3983/JP/2021

Fresh appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’) against the order

dated 12.02.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi under PMLA, passed in O.C. No.1352/2020.

Upon hearing, issue notice. Mr. Neeraj Atri, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent no.1 (ED). The learned counsel for the

respondent seeks six weeks time to file the reply to the appeal, which is not objected. Considered the prayer and the same is allowed. As prayed, the

learned counsel for the respondent is granted six weeks time to file reply to the appeal with an advance copy to the other side. The learned counsel for

the appellant has sought two weeks time to file rejoinder, if any, after receipt of the copy of the reply to the appeal. The same is also considered and

allowed.

Along with the appeal the appellant has filed application seeking stay on the operation of impugned order dated 12.02.2021 as well as ad-interim stay

of the execution of the eviction notice dated 08.03.2021 issued by the Respondent (ED) under Section 8(4) of the PML Act, 2002 read with Rule 5(2)

of the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013,

directing the appellant to vacate the premises i.e. “Flat No. 703, Orchid Tower, Seventh Floor, Mangalam Complex, Village Bhuwana, Udaipur

(admeasuring area-1610 sq. ft.)â€​ within the stipulated/statutory 10 days period from the date of receipt of the notice.

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant inter-alia has contended in the application for stay as well as orally submitted that

the aforesaid noticed property has been transferred from Respondent No.2 namely Mr. Bharat Bomb to the appellant in the month of June 2011

through a duly registered gift deed registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Udaipur-1. The aforesaid gift deed has been made in lieu of the

commission which was to be paid to him by the respondent no.2.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that no proceeds of crime involved in the property in question and that the property is

under his possession and the same is given on rent to a tenant against a monthly rent of Rs.14,000/- per month and that the property has been

transferred to the appellant prior to the alleged date of commission of crime and that it is evident from the papers that the consideration amount for the

purchase of the said property was paid by respondent no.2 from his bank account maintained in Rajsamand Urban Co-operative Bank which has got

no connection with the fraud alleged to have been committed by respondent no.2 with Syndicate Bank. In this regard, he has referred to Para 10.6 of

the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) dated 12.09.2020, the Gift Deed dated 15.06.2011 and the running page no.288 (Sale Deed). It is also

submitted by him that as per his information the tenant is still staying in the property.

On the aforesaid grounds the appellant is seeking stay of the operation of the impugned order and ad-interim stay on the eviction notice dated

08.03.2021.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent (ED) vehemently objected to the submissions made by the appellant’s counsel and

granting of any interim relief to the appellant. He inter-alia submitted that as per his information the Enforcement Directorate has already taken

possession of the property and in the circumstances has agreed to maintain status quo in respect of the aforesaid property. However, he has sought

six weeks time to file reply to the stay application, which is not objected.

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. It is the contention of the appellant that he is in possession of the property and a

tenant is residing there for a rent of Rs.14,000/- per month and that the Enforcement Directorate, to his information, has not taken any possession of

the aforesaid property and that he has agreed to maintain status quo over the property. Both the parties are making disputed claims of possession over

the property and that both the parties have agreed to maintain status quo.

In view of the above, after considering the submissions made by both the parties, it is hereby ordered that both the parties to maintain status quo with

respect to the aforesaid property till the next date of hearing. If the property is still in possession of the tenant, the appellant is directed to deposit

monthly rent amount with the respondent (ED) by 15th day of the next month till the next date of hearing.

The aforesaid order of ad-interim ‘status quo’ is granted subject to the following conditions:-

i. Attachments shall continue.

ii. The legal and constructive possession of the property in question shall remain with the Enforcement Directorate, if the physical possession is not

taken by the Enforcement Directorate;

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

iv. Neither party is allowed to alter the nature and character of the property in question, as on today.

v. No encumbrance shall be created by the appellant in respect of the aforesaid property.

Respondent (ED) is granted six weeks time to file the reply to the stay application with an advance copy to be served on the other side.

With the consent of both the parties, list the matter on 26th July, 2021.