Sanjiv Khade vs Deputy Director Directorate Of Enforcement, Nagpur

G. C. Mishra, Acting Chairman

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

MP-PMLA-8496/NGP/2021 (U.H.)

In view of the issuance of notice dated 11.02.2021 for taking possession of the immovable property mentioned in the notice, the

appellant/applicant’ counsel has filed the urgent application on dated 19.03.2021 for urgent hearing of the matter. The prayer for urgent hearing is

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

FPA-PMLA-3944/NGP/2021 & MP-PMLA-8377/NGP/2021 (Stay) in FPA-PMLA-3944/NGP/2021

Fresh appeal has been filed by the appellant’s wife being Pairokar (as the appellant is currently in judicial custody) under Section 26 of the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’) against the order dated 14.01.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi

under PMLA, passed in O.C. No.1335/2020.

Upon hearing, issue notice. Mr. Vikas Garg, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent (ED). The learned counsel for the respondent

submitted that he has not been served with the appeal paper-book. Learned counsel for the appellant undertook that he will serve the copy of the

paper-book to the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent seeks six weeks time to file the reply to the appeal, after

the receipt of the copy of the appeal paper-book, which is not objected. Considered the prayer and the same is allowed. 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’s wife has filed application seeking ad-interim stay on the operation of impugned order dated 14.01.2021 as

well as sought directions to the respondent to withdrawn the eviction notice dated 11.02.2021 issued by the Respondent (ED) under Section 8(4) of the

PML Act, 2002 read with Rule 5(1) 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 said premises i.e. “Flat No.101, A-Wing, Jayanti Mansion-6, Manish Nagar,

Wardha Road, Nagpurâ€​ 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 contended in the application for stay as well as orally submitted that as

per the impugned order the defendant no.1 Mr. Amardeep Singh Thakur who is alleged to be the mastermind of the total embezzled amount of

Rs.3,09,53,000/- and the said amount was tainted or withdrawn only between 21.07.2007 to early 2011 through various companies, as per the

submissions made by Mr. Amardeep Singh Thakur in the PAO dated 29.07.2020 and that the respondent attached the aforesaid immovable property

to the tune of Rs.44,79,266/- and it was in the alleged in the impugned order that the Mr. Amardeep Singh Thakur, who is the main accused and

mastermind in this case, had floated different companies and Mr. Amardeep Singh Thakur has the ownerships in those companies to which FIR

No.313/2011 dated 07.12.2011 has been filed against Mr. Amardeep Singh Thakur and that the aforesaid property attached is equivalent to the value

thereof and the property was purchased in the year 2011 and the appellant became the Director in those companies in 2013 and the appellant is in

judicial custody since 20.04.2013 and his wife and his children are currently residing in the aforesaid property and the appellant received the

possession notice at the Special Jail, Bhubaneswar on 16.02.2021.

During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to internal page no(s).30, 31 & 34 of the impugned order and submitted

that appellant is innocent and that the learned counsel for the appellant on instructions further submitted that the appellant undertakes that he will not

transfer, alienate and create any third party right on the said 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

11.02.2021.

Learned counsel for the respondent (ED) raised strong objection to the submissions made by the appellant’s counsel for granting of any interim

relief in favour of the appellant. He further submitted that when the possession notice under Section 8(4) of the PMLA, 2002 was issued and steps

were taken to serve the same on the appellant’s wife who is residing in the said property, she refused to accept the same and to that the

possession notice was then served to the appellant who is currently in jail and that the appellant’s family is delaying the eviction process and

thereby frustrating the proceedings. On the aforesaid ground the appellant do not deserve any interim relief.

Heard both sides on the application for stay of the operation of the impugned order and stay on the operation of eviction notice dated 11.02.2021. The

aforesaid property is currently occupied by appellant’s wife and his children and in the Covid-19 pandemic situation it would be against the interest

of justice and would be inhumane to evict the appellant’s family from the flat. Further, after considering the submissions and perusal of the

materials placed on record, I find that there is a prima facie case for grant of ad-interim order of ‘status quo’ with respect to the immovable

property in question.

Both the parties are directed to maintain the ‘status quo’ as on today till the next date of hearing with respect to the immovable property in

question qua the appellant.

The aforesaid order of ad-interim ‘status quo’ is 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;

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

iv. The appellant shall not 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 23rd July, 2021.

Copy of the order be given ‘dasti’ to both the parties.