Ad-interim status quo - eviction under section 8(4) of the PMLA, 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 - prima facie case - attachments shall continue - prohibition on creating third party rights, transfers or encumbrances - public interest in preservation of functioning institutionsAd-interim status quo - prima facie case - Grant of ad-interim status quo in respect of properties at serial no. (i) to (iv) (owned by M/s. Safe Infracon Pvt. Ltd.). - HELD THAT: - The properties at serial no(s).(i) to (iv) are admittedly registered in the name of M/s. Safe Infracon Pvt. Ltd. and the existence and character of the company (including the respondent's allegation that it is a shell) are matters to be decided on merits at the hearing of the appeal. In view of the admitted title on record and the appellants' prima facie case at this interim stage, the Tribunal directed that status quo be maintained in respect of these four properties until the next date of hearing, subject to the conditions set out in the order. [Paras 27]Status quo granted in respect of properties at serial no. (i) to (iv) until next hearing, subject to conditions.Ad-interim status quo - prima facie case - Grant of ad-interim status quo in respect of properties at serial no. (v) and (xii). - HELD THAT: - The appellants asserted that the consideration for these properties was paid from amounts received under a probated Will decreed by a competent court; the respondent contests the genuineness of the Will and is investigating it. No material on record at this interim stage rebuts the court decree relied upon by the appellants. On that basis the Tribunal found a prima facie case in favour of the appellants and directed maintenance of status quo in respect of properties at serial no(s).(v) and (xii) until the next hearing, subject to the stipulated conditions. [Paras 28]Status quo granted in respect of properties at serial no. (v) and (xii) until next hearing, subject to conditions.No prima facie case - Refusal of interim relief in respect of property at serial no. (vi). - HELD THAT: - The registered sale deed dated 14-5-2004 shows acquisition of the property in the name of Smt. Meena Devi for a stated consideration, but the appellants were unable to substantiate the source of the consideration at the interim stage. In the absence of a prima facie case to justify status quo, the Tribunal declined to grant any stay in respect of property at serial no. (vi). [Paras 29]No status quo or stay granted in respect of property at serial no. (vi).Ad-interim status quo - prima facie case - Grant of ad-interim status quo in respect of property at serial no. (viii) (held in the name of M/s. Swastik Samajik Seva Sansthan). - HELD THAT: - The property was purchased in the name of the society with a stated consideration partly by cheque and partly in cash. The respondent alleges the society is a shell and the funds were proceeds of crime; the appellants contend the amount was donations accounted for in the society's returns. The Tribunal found that the appellants (the society) have made out a prima facie case at the interim stage and directed maintenance of status quo in respect of that property until the next hearing, reserving substantive examination for the appeal. [Paras 31]Status quo granted in respect of property at serial no. (viii) until next hearing, subject to conditions.Ad-interim status quo - public interest in preservation of functioning institutions - Grant of ad-interim status quo in respect of properties at serial no. (ix) to (xi) (held in the name of M/s. Saket Nursing College). - HELD THAT: - These properties are registered in the name of Saket Nursing College, a running educational institution with students currently enrolled. The Tribunal observed that taking physical possession at this stage could jeopardize the interests of students and the public, and on that basis found it appropriate in the interest of justice to direct maintenance of status quo until the next date of hearing, leaving the merits to be considered later. [Paras 32]Status quo granted in respect of properties at serial no. (ix) to (xi) until next hearing, subject to conditions.Ad-interim status quo - public interest in preservation of functioning institutions - Grant of ad-interim status quo in respect of property at serial no. (xiii) (RAG Memorial Trust / RAG Hospital). - HELD THAT: - The property is held by RAG Memorial Trust and is a functioning hospital serving the public; several trustees include appellants. The Tribunal found that seizure of physical possession could harm public interest and therefore a prima facie case for interim protection exists. Accordingly, status quo was directed to be maintained for the hospital property until the next hearing, with substantive issues reserved. [Paras 33]Status quo granted in respect of property at serial no. (xiii) until next hearing, subject to conditions.Attachments shall continue - prohibition on creating third party rights, transfers or encumbrances - Conditions subject to which ad-interim status quo is ordered. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal stipulated that the ad-interim status quo orders (for all properties except serial no. (vi) and (vii)) are subject to: continuance of existing attachments; prohibition on the appellants creating any third party rights, transfers, mortgages or other disposition of the properties; prohibition on altering the nature or character of the properties; and no creation of encumbrances. These conditions preserve the existing position until final adjudication on merits. [Paras 34]Interim status quo granted subject to conditions: attachments continue; appellants prohibited from creating third party rights, transfers, encumbrances or altering the properties.Procedural timetable - Interim procedural directions for filing of replies and listing of appeals. - HELD THAT: - The respondent was granted six weeks' time to file replies to the appeals and stay applications with advance copies to the appellants; appellants may file rejoinders within four weeks thereafter. By consent, the appeals were listed on 27 April 2021. These directions regulate further progress of the appeals and interlocutory applications. [Paras 35, 36]Respondent to file replies in six weeks; rejoinders within four weeks thereafter; matters listed on 27 April 2021.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal granted ad-interim status quo (subject to explicit conditions preserving attachments and prohibiting transfers/encumbrances) in respect of properties at serial nos. (i)-(v), (viii)-(xi) and (xiii); refused interim relief for property at serial no. (vi) (no relief claimed for (vii)); respondent directed to file replies within six weeks and the matters were listed for hearing on 27 April 2021.

Status quo - interim stay - symbolic possession - physical possession - notice under section 8(4) of PMLA, 2002 - attachments shall continue - legal and constructive possession - prohibition on creating third party rights - supervised harvestingStatus quo - interim stay - symbolic possession - physical possession - notice under section 8(4) of PMLA, 2002 - supervised harvesting - attachments shall continue - legal and constructive possession - prohibition on creating third party rights - Interim status quo was directed in respect of the agricultural lands on which wheat crop has been sown, with conditional permission to harvest if physical possession is with the appellants. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal noted competing claims of physical possession and that symbolic possession had been taken by the Enforcement Directorate, with no clear answer on whether the ten days notice under section 8(4) of PMLA, 2002 was issued. As crops have been sown and appellants claim agricultural livelihood, the Tribunal directed maintenance of status quo over the immovable properties on which wheat crops have been grown until the next hearing. The order permits harvesting only if appellants are in physical possession, and then harvest must be carried out in the presence and under the supervision of local officers of the Enforcement Directorate with an appropriate account submitted to the Directorate. The status quo direction is expressly subject to conditions that attachments shall continue, legal and constructive possession shall remain with the Enforcement Directorate, the appellants shall not create third party rights or encumbrances, and shall not change the nature or character of the properties. [Paras 9]Status quo directed on agricultural lands with conditional supervised harvesting allowed if appellants are in physical possession, and attachments and ED's legal/constructive possession to remain; appellants prohibited from creating third party rights or encumbrances and from changing property character.Interim stay - filing of reply and rejoinder - notice - Timeline for pleadings in the appeals: service of notice on respondent and specified periods for filing replies and rejoinders. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate and, on acceptance, granted the respondent four weeks to file replies to the appeals with advance copies to the appellants. Thereafter the appellants were granted four weeks to file rejoinders to the replies, again with advance service. The respondent was also granted four weeks to file replies to the interim applications. The matters were listed for further hearing by consent on the specified date. [Paras 4, 10, 11]Notice issued; respondent to file replies within four weeks and appellants to file rejoinders within four weeks thereafter; respondent given four weeks to file replies to interim applications; matters listed for further hearing.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal directed maintenance of status quo in respect of the agricultural properties on which wheat has been sown, subject to specified conditions (attachments to continue; ED to retain legal/constructive possession; no creation of third party rights or encumbrances; no change in property character), allowed supervised harvesting if appellants are in physical possession with accounts submitted to ED, issued notice to the respondent and fixed timetables for filing of replies and rejoinders, and listed the matters for further hearing.

Status quo - attachment of property - eviction notice under section 8(4) of the PMLA - ex parte ad interim stay under section 35 of the PMLA - prohibition on creation of third party rights - produce official record of the proceedingStatus quo - attachment of property - prohibition on creation of third party rights - eviction notice under section 8(4) of the PMLA - Interim order maintaining status quo in respect of the specified immovable property and imposing conditions on parties pending further hearing of the appeal and stay application - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal considered the admitted factual position that the appellant is in possession of the immovable property (though lying vacant) and that the property is hypothecated/mortgaged to financial institutions. Having heard submissions, the Tribunal directed that status quo be maintained until the next date of hearing. The attachment of the property shall continue and the Enforcement Directorate shall retain legal and constructive possession. The appellant is restrained from creating any third party rights, disposing of the property, creating any encumbrance, or altering the nature or character of the property. The interim order was made as a protective measure while parties file pleadings and the appeal and stay application proceed, without deciding the merits of the underlying adjudication or eviction notice under section 8(4) of the PMLA. [Paras 11, 12, 13, 14]Status quo maintained over the property subject to continuation of attachment, ED's legal and constructive possession, prohibition on creation of third party rights or encumbrances, and prohibition on change of nature or character of the property; matter listed on 26 April 2021.Ex parte ad interim stay under section 35 of the PMLA - produce official record of the proceeding - Procedural directions concerning filing of pleadings and production of official record - HELD THAT: - Notice was issued on the appeal and on the application seeking production of the official record of O.C. No.1329/2020; the respondent was granted six weeks to file its reply to both the appeal and the production application with service of advance copies, and the appellant was granted three weeks from receipt of the reply to file any rejoinder. The appellant was directed to supply to the respondent the inspection attachment it had sent by email. These directions were procedural and aimed at securing the record and ensuring opportunity for pleadings prior to final disposal. [Paras 4, 5, 12, 13, 14]Notice issued; respondent to file reply in six weeks, appellant to file rejoinder in three weeks thereafter; Registry directed to produce record on notice; appellant to provide inspection document to respondent; next listing fixed for 26 April 2021.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed urgent hearing, issued notice on the appeal and ancillary applications, and granted an interim order maintaining status quo over the specified property with continuance of attachment and ED possession and prohibiting creation of third party rights or encumbrances, while directing exchange of pleadings and production of the official record; the matter is listed on 26 April 2021.

Delay in pronouncement of adjudicatory order - prejudice from undue delay - right to be heard / opportunity of personal hearing - setting aside and remand for fresh adjudication - expeditious disposal of adjudicatory proceedingsDelay in pronouncement of adjudicatory order - prejudice from undue delay - right to be heard / opportunity of personal hearing - Whether the undue delay in delivering the adjudication order prejudiced the appellant and warranted setting aside the order. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority delivered the impugned order after a substantial and unexplained delay following conclusion of hearing, and that the delay had resulted in material irregularity causing prejudice to the appellant. The Tribunal examined authorities relied on by both parties, distinguished the respondent's reliance on Telestar where delay was not urged earlier, and accepted that precedents such as Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani, Kanahaiyalal and the Bombay High Court decision in EMCO support setting aside an order where delay has caused prejudice or where the adjudicating authority has failed to explain the delay and may not have addressed the parties' submissions. On this short question of delay, and without expressing any view on the merits, the Tribunal allowed the appeal insofar as it related to the appellant and set aside the impugned adjudication order dated 09.03.2009 for the appellant. [Paras 16, 18, 19, 20]Appeal allowed limited to delay ground; impugned order dated 09.03.2009 set aside insofar as it relates to the appellant.Setting aside and remand for fresh adjudication - expeditious disposal of adjudicatory proceedings - opportunity to be heard - What remedial direction should follow after setting aside the adjudication order on account of delay. - HELD THAT: - Having set aside the impugned order on the limited ground of undue delay and prejudice, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision on all legal and factual issues concerning the appellant. The Tribunal directed that the Adjudicating Authority decide the case afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunities to both parties, and recommended expeditious disposal preferably within six months from the date of appearance. Specific administrative directions were given as to the parties' appearance before the Adjudicating Authority by a stipulated date and that a copy of the Tribunal order be sent to the Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai. [Paras 20, 21]Matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication on all legal and factual issues relating to the appellant, to be decided expeditiously (preferably within six months) after affording opportunities to both parties; parties to appear by the date directed.Final Conclusion: The appeal by M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. is allowed on the limited ground of undue delay in pronouncement of the adjudication order; the impugned order dated 09.03.2009 is set aside insofar as it relates to the appellant and the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication of all legal and factual issues after affording opportunity to both parties, to be decided expeditiously.

Status quo - contempt for violation of court order - Order XXXIX rule 2(A) CPC read with section 151 CPC - maintaining status quo till next date of hearing - manner of taking possession of immovable property under the Prevention of Money laundering Rules, 2013 - assistance of local authorities in taking possession - vacation of premises by tenantsStatus quo - contempt for violation of court order - manner of taking possession of immovable property under the Prevention of Money laundering Rules, 2013 - assistance of local authorities in taking possession - vacation of premises by tenants - Whether the notices dated 12-1-2021 issued by the respondent (ED) violated the Tribunal's order dated 14-12-2020 and amounted to contempt, warranting punishment and interim relief. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined its order of 14-12-2020 which recorded that possession had already been taken of all properties except two and contained specific observations permitting the respondent to take possession of those two properties in accordance with the Rules. The earlier order found no prima facie case for a stay and noted (i) the appellant was allowed to remove plant and machinery from the under construction premises and (ii) certain floors of the five storey building were let out to tenants who had assured vacating and handing over possession. The Tribunal quoted rule 5(4) governing the manner of taking possession of immovable property and the course of vacating rented premises and noted that the respondent's notices of 12-1-2021 were issued in conformity with the said order and the statutory procedure for taking possession, including involving local authorities where necessary. On that basis the Tribunal found that issuance of the impugned notices did not contravene the direction to maintain status quo until the next date of hearing and therefore did not constitute contempt or a breach of the 14-12-2020 order. [Paras 8, 9]Contempt applications dismissed; impugned notices did not violate the Tribunal's order dated 14-12-2020.Final Conclusion: The applications for contempt were dismissed as without merit; the appeals and stay applications are listed for 26th February, 2021.

Maintainability of appeal - authority to file appeals under section 26(1) of PMLA - delegation of statutory power - ministerial acts versus essential decision making - curable procedural defectsMaintainability of appeal - authority to file appeals under section 26(1) of PMLA - ministerial acts versus essential decision making - curable procedural defects - Whether an appeal filed as "Enforcement Directorate through Assistant Director" is maintainable when the Assistant Director physically signed and filed the appeal under internal authorization. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that the appeal is maintainable. It accepted that the Enforcement Directorate is the aggrieved party and that filing the appeal by an Assistant Director, authorised by a senior officer (decision taken at the level of Joint Director with approval of the Special Director), was a ministerial step in implementation of the Directorate's decision to prefer an appeal. The Tribunal analysed the statutory scheme (definitions in section 2, classes of authorities in section 48, appointment and powers under section 49, and the specific wording of section 26(1)) and concluded that officers in the same class as "Director" (as provided in section 48(a)) and exercise of departmental decision making at the level of Special Director/Joint Director did not render the appeal invalid. The Tribunal rejected reliance on authorities said to forbid any sub delegation where the facts did not show that an essential decisional function was sub delegated; instead, the act of signing and presenting the appeal was treated as ministerial/clerical and hence permissible once the competent authority had applied its mind and authorised filing. The Tribunal also noted that the respondents failed to demonstrate any specific or substantial prejudice caused by the manner of filing. Authorities and principles invoked by parties were considered, but the Tribunal found them distinguishable or inapplicable on the facts. Procedural curable defects and reliance on provisions like section 68 were considered but did not alter the conclusion that the appeal should be heard on merits.Appeal is maintainable and shall be listed for hearing on merits.Delay in raising preliminary objection - Whether respondent no. 17's belated oral adoption of maintainability objections should be allowed. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal observed that respondent no. 17 did not raise the maintainability objection in writing at an earlier stage and only adopted the arguments during hearing. On that basis the Tribunal found the objection to be belated and rejected it for want of timely raising.Respondent no. 17's plea on maintainability is rejected as raised belatedly.Final Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal held the appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate through an authorised Assistant Director to be maintainable, rejected the belated objection by respondent no. 17, and directed the matter to be listed for hearing on merits (with written synopses to be filed).

Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Substitution of party and right to be heard in PMLA adjudication - Principles of natural justice in adjudicatory proceedings - Rights of a secured creditor/assignee under SARFAESI Act vis-a -vis PMLA attachment - Reason to believe requirement for attachment under PMLA - Continuation of attachment and maintenance of status quo pending adjudication - Remand for fresh adjudication where procedural infirmity foundSubstitution of party and right to be heard in PMLA adjudication - Principles of natural justice in adjudicatory proceedings - Remand for fresh adjudication where procedural infirmity found - Whether the adjudicating authority failed to substitute the appellant in place of the original lender and failed to consider the appellant's reply, oral and written submissions, thereby violating principles of natural justice and requiring remand. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that the appellant (assignee of the original lender) had stepped into the shoes of Bajaj Finance Ltd. prior to the Provisional Attachment Order and had applied for substitution and filed reply, oral arguments and written submissions before the Adjudicating Authority. The impugned order records the assignment but contains no order effecting substitution and does not reflect consideration of the appellant's submissions. The Tribunal held that this amounted to non-compliance with the procedural requirements under the PMLA provisions invoked and a breach of the appellant's right to be heard. As a consequence the Tribunal set aside the adjudicating authority's order insofar as it related to the appellant and the properties concerned and remitted the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for re-adjudication. The appellant was directed to file appropriate application within 30 days and the Adjudicating Authority was directed to decide all legal and factual issues after giving opportunity to both parties within 150 days.Impugned order set aside qua the appellant and the attached properties; matter remanded for re-adjudication after affording the appellant opportunity to be heard and for the Adjudicating Authority to decide all issues afresh.Continuation of attachment and maintenance of status quo pending adjudication - Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Whether the provisional attachments should remain in force during re-adjudication. - HELD THAT: - While setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter for fresh adjudication, the Tribunal expressly declined to express any opinion on the merits concerning the source of funds or whether the properties were proceeds of crime. The Tribunal directed that the existing attachments shall continue until completion of proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority and ordered both parties to maintain status quo in respect of the attached properties. No costs were imposed and pending applications were disposed of.Attachments to continue and parties to maintain status quo in respect of the attached properties pending re-adjudication by the Adjudicating Authority.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed in part: the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 05.08.2019 is set aside insofar as it concerns the appellant and the specified properties due to failure to effect substitution and breach of natural justice; the matter is remitted for fresh adjudication after giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard, while the provisional attachments shall remain in force and parties shall maintain status quo pending completion of the re-adjudication.

Provisional attachment under Section 5 of PMLA - reason to believe under Section 5(1) of PMLA - bona fide third party interest in tainted property - priority of secured creditor and interplay between SARFAESI and PMLA - jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal under Section 26(4) of PMLA - claim for release of property before Special Court under Section 8 of PMLABona fide third party interest in tainted property - due diligence of secured creditor - Entitlement of the appellant (secured creditor) to release of attached properties on the ground of being a bona fide third party having acquired interest prior to March 2016 loan sanction. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal considered whether the appellant's mortgage interest, arising from home loans sanctioned in March 2016, defeated the provisional attachment where the properties were prima facie acquired in 2013-2014 out of proceeds of crime. The record and the investigation materials establish a prima facie money trail showing that funds from the consortium loans were utilised to acquire the properties before the appellant advanced its loans. Although the appellant produced documents to show due diligence at sanction, the Tribunal held that where the property is prima facie tainted and was acquired out of proceeds of crime prior to the creditor's charge, the attachment cannot be set aside in favour of the secured creditor. Reliance placed by appellant on authorities permitting protection of bona fide third parties was found inapplicable because the alleged criminal activity and acquisition pre-dated the appellant's interest; accordingly the appellant's claim to priority and release failed. [Paras 5]Appellant's plea as a bona fide third party and claim for release on grounds of due diligence is rejected.Priority of secured creditor and interplay between SARFAESI and PMLA - attachment under PMLA vis-a -vis enforcement under SARFAESI - Whether initiation of SARFAESI proceedings and symbolic possession prior to provisional attachment entitles the secured creditor to have the PMLA attachment subordinated or lifted. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined the contention that enforcement action under SARFAESI, initiated prior to the PMLA provisional attachment, should prevail and permit the secured creditor to enforce its security. It found that where the properties are prima facie proceeds of crime (acquired before the creditor's charge), initiation of SARFAESI proceedings before attachment does not automatically override PMLA protection. The Tribunal distinguished earlier decisions relied upon by the appellant as inapposite on facts: in this case the funds underlying acquisition of the properties originated from the criminal activity predating the appellant's charge. The Tribunal also noted binding authorities that PMLA's scheme must operate to protect tainted assets and that SARFAESI cannot displace PMLA where properties are proceeds of crime. [Paras 5]Appellant's contention that SARFAESI enforcement prior to attachment yields priority is not accepted; the PMLA attachment remains unaffected on the facts.Reason to believe under Section 5(1) of PMLA - provisional attachment under Section 5 - Validity of the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of the provisional attachment on the basis of the material forming 'reason to believe'. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal reviewed the material relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate and recorded by the Adjudicating Authority, including the FIR, forensic audit findings, bank records and traced money flows showing utilisation of consortium loan funds for acquisition and subsequent transfers relating to the properties. The impugned order (paras 3-26 and conclusions at paras 27-29 of the Adjudicating Authority) sets out the factual basis for formation of 'reason to believe'. On that basis the Tribunal held there was compliance with the statutory requirement to form a reasoned belief that the properties were proceeds of crime and likely to be dealt with so as to frustrate confiscation proceedings; accordingly the confirmation of attachment was not legally infirm. [Paras 5]The Adjudicating Authority had sufficient material to form 'reason to believe'; the confirmation of provisional attachment is sustained.Jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal under Section 26(4) of PMLA - claim for release of property before Special Court under Section 8 - Competence of this Appellate Tribunal to entertain the appeal against confirmation of attachment notwithstanding parallel criminal proceedings and the possibility of claims before the Special Court. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal considered whether it was functus or ousted by the Special Court's proceedings. Applying the legislative scheme and authoritative guidance, the Tribunal noted that the appellate forum under Section 26(4) may 'confirm, modify or set aside' the adjudicating authority's order and that jurisdiction of the Special Court to adjudicate third-party claims becomes exclusive only where the attachment order has attained finality, confiscation has been ordered, or trial under Section 4 has commenced. Since charges/trial had not commenced here, the Tribunal retained jurisdiction to decide the appeal. The Tribunal therefore proceeded to examine the merits rather than directing the appellant to the Special Court. [Paras 5]This Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal; the appellant was not required to approach the Special Court at this stage.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed. The Tribunal found no illegality in the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of the provisional attachment: the properties are prima facie proceeds of crime acquired prior to the appellant's charge, the material sufficed to form 'reason to believe', the appellant's bona fide third party and SARFAESI priority claims fail on the facts, and the Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the matter.

Attachment of property under PMLA - Person interested - Right to enjoyment of attached property - Opportunity of hearing under Section 8 PMLA - Principle of natural justice - Made-over/cultivation agreements versus ownership - Remand for fresh adjudicationAttachment of property under PMLA - Person interested - Opportunity of hearing under Section 8 PMLA - Principle of natural justice - Whether confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order in respect of the appellants' properties without notice to or examination of the appellants violated the provisions of PMLA and principles of natural justice - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that the appellants, on the material before it, prima facie hold ownership and an interest in the attached immovable properties and had only executed made-over/cultivation agreements in favour of third parties. Section 5(4) (definition of "person interested") and Section 8 require that persons claiming interest be given an opportunity to indicate sources of income and be heard before adjudication. Despite documentary material on record indicating the appellants' interest, they were neither noticed nor examined by the Enforcement Directorate or the Adjudicating Authority. A decision premised on assumptions that long possession for cultivation amounts to transfer of ownership cannot substitute for adjudication by a competent civil forum and does not relieve the Adjudicating Authority of its duty to afford hearing under Section 8. The failure to give the appellants notice and opportunity amounted to a clear breach of natural justice and of the statutory scheme governing attachment and adjudication under the PMLA.Findings of confirmation of attachment insofar as they relate to the appellants were set aside for breach of natural justice and statutory procedure; the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after giving the appellants due opportunity.Made-over/cultivation agreements versus ownership - Remand for fresh adjudication - Whether the question of ownership arising from made-over/cultivation agreements could be finally determined by the Tribunal or should be examined afresh by the Adjudicating Authority - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal recorded that issues as to whether long cultivation or made-over tenancy arrangements amount to transfer of ownership cannot be resolved on assumption and require proper adjudication. The Tribunal expressly declined to express any opinion on the merits of the source of income or ownership and directed that the Adjudicating Authority, after affording notice and hearing to the appellants and after considering all relevant materials and replies, must record a finding whether the attached properties are involved in money-laundering. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter for read-judication limited to these aspects, directing the appellants to file applications raising all legal and factual contentions within the prescribed period.Matter remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication on merits and record of findings regarding involvement of the properties in money-laundering, after giving the appellants opportunity to be heard; attachments to remain in effect and parties to maintain status quo pending adjudication.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed in part: the impugned confirmation order is set aside insofar as it concerns the appellants for failure to afford statutory notice and hearing; the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for read-judication within the specified period after giving the appellants due opportunity to file pleadings and be heard; attachments to continue and status quo to be maintained pending that adjudication.

Necessary party - appointment of liquidator under IBC and vesting of powers - non-joinder - liquidator stepping into the shoes of the corporate debtor - provisional attachment under PMLA vis-a -vis liquidation under IBC - Section 32A(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy CodeNecessary party - appointment of liquidator under IBC and vesting of powers - liquidator stepping into the shoes of the corporate debtor - non-joinder - Whether the liquidator appointed by the NCLT after the liquidation order is a necessary party to the application challenging attachment of corporate assets and whether the application could be decided without impleading the liquidator. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that the NCLT, by its order dated 17.03.2020, appointed a liquidator who, by virtue of that appointment, stepped into the shoes of the corporate debtor and vested with powers to manage the liquidation process. The liquidator thus became the proper representative of the corporate debtor for matters affecting disposal of its assets, and his presence is necessary for effective adjudication of any application which bears on those assets. The appellant filed the present interim application after the liquidation order and did not make the liquidator a party; nor had the appellant sought to implead the liquidator despite that development. The Tribunal relied on the nature of the NCLT order appointing the liquidator and on the statutory functions/powers of the liquidator (including instituting or defending legal proceedings on behalf of the corporate debtor) to hold that non-joinder of the liquidator was fatal to the application being decided on merits. Consequently the Tribunal rejected the application on the ground of non-joinder and procedural impropriety in seeking relief without impleading the liquidator, while noting that the liquidator is a necessary party to an effective adjudication on the questions raised.Application rejected for non-joinder of the liquidator; liquidator held to be a necessary party and must be impleaded before the Tribunal decides the merits.Section 32A(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - provisional attachment under PMLA vis-a -vis liquidation under IBC - Whether the question of law on applicability of Section 32A(2) of the IBC to PMLA attachment orders could be decided in the present application without impleading the liquidator. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the controversy concerning the interplay between Section 32A(2) of the IBC and provisional attachment/PAO under the PMLA. Given the subsequent appointment of the liquidator and his statutory role in liquidation proceedings, the Tribunal held that the instant application was not the appropriate vehicle to determine the question of law in the absence of the liquidator as a party. The appellant was granted liberty to file an appropriate application to implead the liquidator and to raise the substantive question regarding Section 32A(2) and the release of attached assets at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits.Substantive question on Section 32A(2) and PMLA attachment not decided; appellant granted liberty to implead the liquidator and raise the issue before the Tribunal on the hearing of the appeal.Final Conclusion: The interim application is dismissed for non-joinder of the liquidator, who was appointed by the NCLT and is a necessary party; the appellant is granted liberty to implead the liquidator and to raise the question on the applicability of Section 32A(2) of the IBC to PMLA attachment orders when the appeal is heard. The appeal is listed for further hearing on 26th February, 2021.

Reason to believe - provisional attachment under Section 5(1) of PMLA - adjudication under Section 8 of PMLA - effect of acquittal on PMLA proceedings - remand for re-adjudication - continuation of status quo in respect of attached propertiesEffect of acquittal on PMLA proceedings - provisional attachment under Section 5(1) of PMLA - Whether acquittal in the underlying scheduled offences precludes or vitiates attachment/adjudication proceedings under the PMLA. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined authorities and statutory structure and held that proceedings under the PMLA constitute a distinct, self-contained code directed at laundering of proceeds and are not automatically terminated by closure, discharge or acquittal in the scheduled offences. The Tribunal relied on the reasoning in M/s. VGN Developers (Madras High Court) and the statutory scheme (including Section 44(1) explanation as amended) to conclude that acquittal in the predicate or scheduled-offence proceedings has no automatic bearing on attachment or adjudication under PMLA. Consequently the appellants' contention that acquittals in the FIRs abate the PMLA proceedings was rejected.Acquittal in scheduled offences does not by itself invalidate attachment or adjudication proceedings under the PMLA; the contention of the appellants on this ground is negatived.Reason to believe - adjudication under Section 8 of PMLA - Whether the Adjudicating Authority recorded legally sufficient "reasons to believe" when confirming the provisional attachment. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority's impugned order merely recited that it had 'gone through' the complaint and documents and stated a prima facie reason to believe, without demonstrating an independent application of mind or articulating the factual material and rationale connecting the material to the formation of the belief as required by the authorities on 'reason to believe'. The Tribunal observed that reasons must be specific, show a live nexus to the material on record and not be a verbatim reproduction of statutory language. Because the Adjudicating Authority did not adequately examine or record whether the complainant's satisfaction met legal standards (including the requirement to identify why non-attachment would frustrate confiscation proceedings), the Tribunal concluded that the adjudicatory exercise under Section 8(1) was deficient.The confirmation order is set aside for failure to record legally sufficient reasons to believe; the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication on this and other legal issues.Remand for re-adjudication - continuation of status quo in respect of attached properties - Remedial directions upon finding defect in adjudication process. - HELD THAT: - Having set aside the impugned confirmation order for inadequate reasons, the Tribunal directed remand to the Adjudicating Authority to re-adjudicate the matter afresh within a fixed timeframe and to decide all legal issues raised by the appellants (including reasons to believe) after hearing parties and examining materials. The Tribunal preserved the interim position by directing that attachments shall continue and both parties must maintain status quo in respect of attached properties pending re-adjudication. The Tribunal clarified it did not express any opinion on the merits of source of income or the ultimate question of whether properties are proceeds of crime.Impugned order set aside and remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication within 180 days; attachments to continue and status quo to be maintained.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal held that acquittal in predicate/scheduled-offence proceedings does not automatically invalidate PMLA attachment or adjudication; however, because the Adjudicating Authority failed to record legally sufficient "reasons to believe" in confirmation of the provisional attachment, the confirmation order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication within 180 days, with the provisional attachment to remain in force and the parties directed to maintain status quo.

Interim stay - conditional status quo - provisional attachment - legal and constructive possession - prohibition on creation of third party rights - maintenance of present physical statusAdmission of additional documents - recording of documentary evidence for adjudication - Applications for permission to place additional documents on record were allowed and the documents were taken on file. - HELD THAT: - Several applications by different appellants sought permission to place on record documents including electricity bills, copy of Power of Attorney, copy of writ petitions before the High Court and receipts for upkeep of common areas. The Tribunal, for proper adjudication of the appeals, permitted the filing of these documents and directed that they be taken on record. Each such application was disposed of accordingly.Applications for placing additional documents on record allowed and documents taken on record.Interim stay - conditional status quo - provisional attachment - legal and constructive possession - maintenance of present physical status - prohibition on creation of third party rights - Ad interim relief sought against operation of the provisional attachment order and eviction notice in respect of four flats was granted as a conditional order of status quo. - HELD THAT: - The appellants, who stated they are bonafide purchasers and not physically occupying the flats (which are under lock and key), sought ad interim stay of the impugned provisional attachment order and eviction notice. The respondent contested maintainability and asserted entitlement to protect the properties. Having considered submissions and material on record, the Tribunal found it appropriate in the interests of justice to pass a conditional order of status quo in respect of the specified flats until the next date of hearing. The order preserves the attachments and confirms that legal and constructive possession will remain with the Enforcement Directorate. The appellants were restrained from altering the nature or character of the flats, from residing in them until the next hearing, and from creating any third party rights or encumbrances. The respondent was directed likewise not to alter the present status. The Tribunal also granted the respondent six weeks to file replies to the stay applications and listed the matters for further hearing on the specified date.Conditional interim status quo granted with specified prohibitions and preservation of attachments; respondent to file replies within six weeks and matter listed for further hearing.Final Conclusion: Applications for production of additional documents were allowed and taken on record. Ad interim conditional status quo was granted in respect of the four specified flats preserving attachments and legal possession with the Enforcement Directorate, prohibiting appellants from creating third party rights or encumbrances and from altering the present status; respondent directed to file replies within six weeks and matters listed for further hearing.

Confirmation of provisional attachment under Section 8(4) of the PMLA - manner of taking possession of money under Rule 4(5) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Rules, 2013 - transfer of bank balances to the Directorate on confirmation of attachment - prima facie case for grant of ad interim status quo ante - bank guarantee as alternative security to preserved attachmentTransfer of bank balances to the Directorate on confirmation of attachment - confirmation of provisional attachment under Section 8(4) of the PMLA - Whether the stay application had become infructuous by reason of the transfer of the attached amount to the Enforcement Directorate and whether that application should be dismissed as infructuous. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal recorded that by the time the stay application was being pursued the amount stood transferred from the appellant's bank account to the respondent. The transfer rendered the specific relief sought in the stay application (preventing operation of the impugned order so as to keep the funds in the appellant's account) ineffective. The Tribunal therefore concluded that the stay application had lost its purpose and was accordingly dismissed as infructuous. The factual finding that the impugned sum had already been transferred removed the operative basis for the interim relief sought.Stay application dismissed as infructuous because the attached amount had already been transferred to the Enforcement Directorate.Manner of taking possession of money under Rule 4(5) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Rules, 2013 - confirmation of provisional attachment under Section 8(4) of the PMLA - prima facie case for grant of ad interim status quo ante - bank guarantee as alternative security to preserved attachment - Whether an ad interim order should be granted directing reversal of the transfer and restoration of status quo ante, or alternatively directing retransfer subject to a bank guarantee. - HELD THAT: - On confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order, Section 8(4) operates and must be read with Rule 4(5) which prescribes the manner of taking possession of money lying in a bank. Rule 4(5) authorises the authorised officer to direct the bank to transfer and credit the money to the account of the Directorate of Enforcement. The Tribunal held that the respondent had followed the statutory procedure under Section 8(4) read with Rule 4(5) and that there was no illegality in effecting the transfer. Having regard to those provisions, the Tribunal found that the appellant had not made out a prima facie case entitling him to an interim reversal of the transfer. The appellant's offer to furnish a bank guarantee was also declined at the interim stage because the amount was alleged to be proceeds of crime and could not be permitted for use by the appellant pending adjudication; the Tribunal left such questions for determination on the merits at the hearing of the appeal.Application for ad interim reversal of transfer and restoration of status quo ante (and alternative relief by way of bank guarantee) dismissed for want of a prima facie case; transfer under Section 8(4) read with Rule 4(5) held lawful.Final Conclusion: The application for interim stay was dismissed as infructuous because the attached amount had already been transferred to the Enforcement Directorate. The separate application seeking ad interim reversal of the transfer or restoration of status quo ante (or alternatively acceptance of a bank guarantee) was rejected on the ground that the transfer was effected lawfully under Section 8(4) of the PMLA read with Rule 4(5) of the 2013 Rules and the appellant had not made out a prima facie case; the appeal remains listed for final hearing.

Confirmation of provisional attachment - possession and transfer of money under Section 8(4) of PMLA - Rule 4(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013 - bank guarantee as substitute for attached proceeds of crime - prima facie case for grant of interim status quo anteConfirmation of provisional attachment - possession and transfer of money under Section 8(4) of PMLA - Rule 4(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013 - Legality of transferring the attached bank balance to the Enforcement Directorate after confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order where the PAO prayed for maintenance/retention of balance. - HELD THAT: - On confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order the statutory scheme in Section 8(4) of the PMLA becomes operative and must be read with the procedure prescribed by the Rules. Rule 4(5) expressly provides that where the confirmed property is money in a bank the Authorized Officer shall direct the bank to transfer and credit the money to the account of the Directorate of Enforcement. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the PAO on a prima facie finding that the properties were proceeds of crime and involved in money laundering. The corrigendum to the PAO directing the bank to maintain balances did not oust the operation of Section 8(4) read with Rule 4(5). The respondent complied with the prescribed procedure and acted "forthwith" as envisaged by the statutory scheme. Consequently the transfer of the amount to the Enforcement Directorate was not illegal merely because the PAO had used language of maintaining/retaining balance.Transfer of the attached bank amount to the Directorate of Enforcement under Section 8(4) read with Rule 4(5) was lawful and not illegal.Bank guarantee as substitute for attached proceeds of crime - Whether the appellant's offer to furnish a bank guarantee should be accepted to permit retransfer or restoration of the transferred amount pending appeal. - HELD THAT: - The appellant offered to furnish a bank guarantee to secure the amount so that the funds could be used for commercial purposes pending adjudication. The Tribunal observed that the amount is alleged to be proceeds of crime and that the statutory scheme does not provide for substitution of the attached funds by a bank guarantee at the interim stage. Acceptance of such a substitution would be inappropriate when the property is claimed to be proceeds of crime. The respondent's refusal to accept the bank guarantee was held to be justified at this interlocutory stage, leaving the question open for determination on merits in the appeal.The offer to furnish a bank guarantee was not accepted and cannot be allowed at the interim stage.Prima facie case for grant of interim status quo ante - Whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case entitling him to an ad interim order restoring status quo ante (reversal of the transfer) pending the appeal. - HELD THAT: - To obtain an interim restoration of status quo ante the appellant had to demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm. The Tribunal examined the statutory scheme, the order of confirmation and the timing of transfer pursuant to Rule 4(5), and found that the appellant had not shown a prima facie legal infirmity in the transfer or that acceptance of a bank guarantee was permissible as a matter of law. The fact that the transfer occurred soon after service of the confirmation order and before expiry of the appeal period did not render the transfer illegal in view of the statutory power to take possession forthwith. On this basis the appellant failed to establish entitlement to interim relief.The appellant did not make out a prima facie case for restoration of status quo ante; the application for ad interim reversal of transfer is dismissed.Final Conclusion: The interim application for reversal of transfer and restoration of status quo ante is dismissed. The transfer of the attached bank amount to the Enforcement Directorate pursuant to confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order and Rule 4(5) is held lawful; the appellant's offer of a bank guarantee is not accepted at the interlocutory stage. The appeal remains listed for final hearing on the posted date.

Retention of seized records and digital devices for investigation - search and seizure under PMLA - reason to believe requirement - interaction of Section 17 and Section 8(3) - retention during investigation - jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 to grant stay/status quo - right to privacy and protection against self incrimination (Articles 20(3) and 21) before statutory tribunalJurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 to grant stay/status quo - retention of seized records and digital devices for investigation - Appellate Tribunal's power to grant stay or status quo orders vis a vis an Adjudicating Authority order under PMLA and whether such orders may be used to stall investigation - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain appeals under Section 26 and, on receipt of an appeal, may pass such orders as it thinks fit. However, that jurisdiction is subject to the limits of the statute and does not extend to issuing an order whose practical consequence is to stall or obstruct an ongoing investigation. The impugned order under Section 8(3) confirmed retention of seized records for investigation under Section 17(4); a stay seeking to prevent investigatory use of those records (limited here to cell phones) would effectively impede the investigation and is not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction to grant in the circumstances of these cases. The Tribunal therefore declined to grant the status quo/stay sought by the appellants as it would prejudice the investigation and exceed the remedial scope conferred by the PMLA. [Paras 21, 23, 24, 25]Prayer for stay/status quo that would stall investigation is rejected; Tribunal will not grant an order which impedes investigation.Retention of seized records and digital devices for investigation - interaction of Section 17 and Section 8(3) - retention during investigation - Whether retention of seized digital devices (including cell phones) by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 17(4) / Section 8(3) is permissible for investigation - HELD THAT: - Sections 17(1)(i)-(iv) and Section 8(3) are to be read together: the statute contemplates retention of records seized under Section 17 for the purposes of investigation and Section 8(3) contemplates confirmation of such retention where property is found to be involved in money laundering. The Tribunal noted that retention is linked to the investigatory process and may continue for the period permitted by the statute (referenced in the order as not exceeding 365 days). Consequently, retention of records/digital devices for investigation falls within the statutory scheme and the Adjudicating Authority's order allowing retention was an exercise of powers envisaged by the PMLA. [Paras 13, 22]Retention of seized records and digital devices for the purposes of investigation is permissible under the PMLA scheme and the impugned order permitting such retention stands.Search and seizure under PMLA - reason to believe requirement - jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 to grant stay/status quo - Whether appellants' contention that the Adjudicating Authority failed to examine the 'reason to believe' or other statutory contingencies under Section 17(1) justifies staying the retention order - HELD THAT: - The record shows the Adjudicating Authority noted that opportunities were given to parties and adjudicated on the material before it; the appellants' present challenge - that the statutory preconditions under Section 17(1) were not considered - was not established as a ground warranting a stay of retention. The Tribunal observed that objections relating to the adjudicatory process and the sufficiency of reasons are matters for the appeal on merits, but they do not justify a status quo order that would impede investigation. Moreover, the appellants had not raised before the Adjudicating Authority the specific plea that devices should not be unlocked/retained. [Paras 14, 15, 16, 21]Absence of a demonstrated failure to meet the statutory 'reason to believe' threshold in the stay proceedings did not justify interim relief; stay denied.Right to privacy and protection against self incrimination (Articles 20(3) and 21) before statutory tribunal - Whether constitutional challenges based on right to privacy and protection against self incrimination (Articles 20(3) and 21) could be adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal in the stay proceedings to prevent unlocking of cell phones - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that constitutional issues of this nature - including allegations that unlocking cell phones would infringe Articles 20(3) and 21 or the right to privacy - are not amenable to determination in these interlocutory proceedings before the Tribunal, which has limited statutory jurisdiction under Section 26. The contention that summons to unlock phones would violate fundamental rights was not argued before the Adjudicating Authority and, in any event, falls outside the Tribunal's remit in deciding a stay application that would obstruct investigation. Such constitutional challenges are to be raised in appropriate forums (High Court or Supreme Court) where the Tribunal lacks competence to decide them in the present context. [Paras 4, 19, 23]Claims of infringement of Articles 20(3) and 21 / right to privacy cannot be decided by the Tribunal in these stay proceedings; such relief is not available here and the stay application is rejected on this ground as well.Final Conclusion: Applications for stay/status quo limited to cell phones and other digital devices are rejected. The Appellate Tribunal affirmed that, while it has power under Section 26 to pass orders on appeals from the Adjudicating Authority, it will not grant interim relief that has the practical effect of stalling an ongoing investigation; retention of seized records/digital devices for investigatory purposes falls within the statutory scheme under Sections 17 and 8(3), and constitutional objections regarding unlocking devices were held unsuitable for determination in these interlocutory proceedings before the Tribunal.

Provisional Attachment - Proceeds of Crime - Money Laundering - Possession of Proceeds of Crime - Adjudicating Authority's Findings - Modification of Order - Lessor Lessee DistinctionProvisional Attachment - Proceeds of Crime - Possession of Proceeds of Crime - Adjudicating Authority's Findings - Modification of Order - Lessor Lessee Distinction - Whether the Adjudicating Authority correctly included the appellant (lessor) within the findings that the defendants committed scheduled offences, generated proceeds of crime and laundered them, and whether the order required modification. - HELD THAT: - The Appellate Tribunal examined the impugned Provisional Attachment Order and the Adjudicating Authority's concluding observations and found no material or allegation by the Enforcement Directorate that the appellant had committed the scheduled offences, generated proceeds of crime or laundered them. The record shows the appellant was made a party because it was the lessor of the property over which others held lease rights. The ED itself stated it had no objection to modifying the Adjudicating Authority's order insofar as it implicated the appellant. In these circumstances the Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority's implication of the appellant along with the other defendants was not supported legally or factually and required correction. Consequently the Tribunal modified the impugned order by excluding the appellant from the observations and findings that the defendants were in possession of proceeds of crime or had committed the scheduled offences, while leaving the remainder of the attachment order intact as applicable to the others. [Paras 9, 12, 13]The impugned order is modified to the extent that references to 'defendants' being in possession of proceeds of crime or having committed scheduled offences shall exclude the appellant (defendant no.4); the appeal is disposed of accordingly.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal modified the Adjudicating Authority's order to exclude the appellant (the lessor) from the findings that the defendants had committed scheduled offences, generated proceeds of crime and laundered them, and disposed of the appeal accordingly.

Power to restore possession as consequential to restoration of appeal - power to set aside order of dismissal for default under section 35(2)(h) of the PMLA, 2002 - status quo / stay orders and consequential restoration of possession - prima facie case and irreparable injury as basis for interim restoration - prohibition on creating third party encumbrance during restorationPower to restore possession as consequential to restoration of appeal - power to set aside order of dismissal for default under section 35(2)(h) of the PMLA, 2002 - status quo / stay orders and consequential restoration of possession - Tribunal empowered to restore physical possession of property as consequential to restoration of appeal and stay orders. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that it possesses inherent power to pass stay orders and orders consequential thereto, and specifically relied on the statutory power to set aside an order of dismissal for default under section 35(2)(h) of the PMLA, 2002. The restoration of possession in the present case was treated as consequential to the order restoring the appeal which had been dismissed for non prosecution. The earlier Division Bench order dated 28.05.2018 recording status quo in respect of the property (with the appellant's undertaking not to create third party interest) was noted as having not been challenged by the respondent. In these circumstances the Tribunal rejected the respondent's contention that it was not empowered to restore possession and equated the status of restoration of possession during pendency of appeal with the effect of a stay order.Tribunal has power to restore possession as consequential to restoration of appeal and to give effect to status quo/stay orders.Prima facie case and irreparable injury as basis for interim restoration - prohibition on creating third party encumbrance during restoration - Whether restoration of physical possession should be granted to the appellant pending the appeal. - HELD THAT: - On the materials the Tribunal found that the property was allotted to the appellant in 2003 and that the appellant and his aged parents were rendered homeless after eviction following dismissal of the appeal for default. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's undertaking not to part with the property or create encumbrances and found that the appellant has a prima facie case and that refusal to restore possession would cause injustice and irreparable injury not compensable in money. The Tribunal therefore directed restoration of possession, while preserving attachments and the Enforcement Directorate's legal and constructive possession, and imposing prohibitions on transfer, conversion, disposal or creation of encumbrances by the appellant. The order expressly treats the restoration as subject to those conditions.Possession of the property directed to be restored to the appellant subject to conditions preserving attachments, ED's legal/constructive possession, and prohibiting transfer or creation of encumbrances.Final Conclusion: The application for restoration of possession is allowed: the Tribunal held itself empowered to restore possession as consequential to restoration of the appeal and, finding a prima facie case and risk of irreparable injury, directed restoration of physical possession to the appellant subject to continuing attachments, preservation of ED's legal and constructive possession, and prohibition on transfer or creation of encumbrances.

Possession of attached property - revisiting order - corrigendum versus review - funtus officio - status quo and stay - attachment proceedings civil in nature - prima facie grounds for reopeningPossession of attached property - revisiting order - status quo and stay - prima facie grounds for reopening - Application seeking revisiting of the Tribunal's order dated 17.10.2019 and delivery of possession of the ground floor, and the application for stay of operation of letter dated 14.01.2020. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined the appellant's legal and factual grounds and the respondent's reply. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had accepted the earlier order directing handing over of possession of the rented floor and thereafter sought to retain possession on new grounds which were not earlier pleaded. The newly asserted factual plea that the premises is a compact duplex with a single kitchen was found to be inconsistent with the prior unregistered rent agreement and earlier pleadings that the first floor was occupied by the appellant's son while the ground floor was rented. The Tribunal found no prima facie ground to revisit its order dated 17.10.2019. In view of the above and having heard parties, the application to revisit the order and the attendant application for stay of the letter dated 14.01.2020 were dismissed. [Paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]Application MP-PMLA-6817/DLI/2020 dismissed; application MP-PMLA-6871/DLI/2020 for stay dismissed.Corrigendum versus review - funtus officio - attachment proceedings civil in nature - Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the appellant's legal challenge to the Adjudicating Authority's corrigendum dated 09.10.2019 in the present revisiting application. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal observed that the legality of the corrigendum dated 09.10.2019 is already the subject matter of a separate pending appeal (FPA-PMLA-3385/DLI/2019). The contention raised in the revisiting application replicates the challenge in that appeal; deciding the same legal question in the present application would impinge on the merits of the pending appeal. Accordingly, the Tribunal declined to adjudicate the competence of the Adjudicating Authority to issue the corrigendum in these proceedings and left that legal issue to be decided in the pending appeal. [Paras 6]The challenge to the corrigendum dated 09.10.2019 is not decided in this revisiting application and is to be considered in appeal FPA-PMLA-3385/DLI/2019.Final Conclusion: The application seeking revisiting of the Tribunal's order dated 17.10.2019 and the application for stay of the letter dated 14.01.2020 were dismissed for want of prima facie grounds; the separate legal challenge to the Adjudicating Authority's corrigendum dated 09.10.2019 is left to be adjudicated in the pending appeal FPA-PMLA-3385/DLI/2019.

Ad-interim status quo - continuation of attachment - substitution of attachment by fixed deposit - legal and constructive possession - prohibition on transfer and creation of encumbrance - requirement of separate memo of appeal and statutory feeRequirement of separate memo of appeal and statutory fee - Joint appeal by three appellants not permissible; appellants 2 and 3 permitted to file separate memos and pay statutory fee; appeal to be treated as filed by appellant no.1 - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal recorded the objection that a joint appeal filed by three appellants is not permissible. The appellants agreed to file separate memos of appeal for appellants nos. 2 and 3 and to pay the statutory filing fee. Having considered submissions, the Tribunal allowed appellants nos. 2 and 3 one week to file separate memos and to pay the prescribed fee, directed service of copies on the respondent, and stated that the present appeal may be treated as the appeal filed by appellant no.1, Shri Varinder Uppal. Procedural directions were given for filing of respondent's reply and rejoinder thereafter. [Paras 3, 4]Appeal permitted to be split; appellants 2 and 3 to file separate memos and pay fees within one week; appeal treated as filed by appellant no.1; respondent to file reply within six weeks and appellants to file rejoinder within four weeks thereafter.Ad-interim status quo - continuation of attachment - substitution of attachment by fixed deposit - legal and constructive possession - prohibition on transfer and creation of encumbrance - Ad-interim order of status quo maintained over the attached immovable properties subject to specified conditions - HELD THAT: - The appellants sought ad-interim relief from a notice under section 8(4) PMLA directing vacation of immovable properties and offered substitution of attachment by placing fixed deposits equivalent to the purchase price. The Tribunal noted that the two properties were attached as value equivalent to the proceeds of crime and that there was a prima facie case for granting interim relief. Having heard both sides and considered the submissions regarding cultivation on the agricultural land and the offer of substitution, the Tribunal directed that status quo be maintained until the next hearing, while providing that attachments shall continue and that the ED's legal and constructive possession remain. The appellants were prohibited from transferring, converting or disposing of the properties or creating any encumbrance. The respondent was given three weeks to file reply and take instructions on the offer. [Paras 12, 14]Status quo maintained over the listed properties until next hearing (1st April, 2020) subject to continuation of attachments, ED's legal and constructive possession, prohibition on transfer/conversion/disposal, and no creation of encumbrance; respondent to file reply within three weeks.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed splitting of the joint appeal by permitting separate memos and fee payment by appellants 2 and 3 and granted an ad interim order preserving status quo over the attached properties subject to specified conditions, while directing the respondent to file its reply within three weeks and listing the stay application for further hearing on 1st April, 2020.

Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution - discretion to restore appeals in the interest of justice - failure to send copy of tribunal order under Section 26(5) of the PMLA, 2002 - condonation of delay - payment of costs as condition for restoration - stay application rendered infructuous where possession has already been takenRestoration of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution - discretion to restore appeals in the interest of justice - condonation of delay - payment of costs as condition for restoration - Application for restoration of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution was allowed subject to payment of costs. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined the pleadings and oral submissions and found that the appellant did not receive a copy of the order dated 27.11.2019 and the mandatory duty under Section 26(5) of the PMLA, 2002 to send every order to the parties had not been discharged. On that basis the Tribunal concluded there was effectively no delay in filing the restoration application. The Tribunal also noted the appellant's absence on multiple earlier dates, the belated filing of vakalatnama and that the appellant had sought condonation orally; however, in view of the failure to serve the order and the pendency of connected appeals the Tribunal exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in the interest of justice to restore the appeal. Considering possible prejudice to the respondent, the Tribunal conditioned restoration on payment of costs and directed payment within a fixed period. The restoration was therefore allowed on payment of cost as compensation for prejudice to the respondent. [Paras 5, 8, 9, 10, 11]Restoration of appeal FPA-PMLA-2205/CHD/2018 allowed on payment of costs of Rs.20,000 within eight weeks; appeal restored to file.Stay application rendered infructuous where possession has already been taken - Application for stay of possession was dismissed as infructuous because the respondent had already taken possession of the property. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal recorded that possession of the specified property had been taken by the respondent pursuant to the notice and that the appellant and his family had already been evicted and were residing elsewhere. Given that the relief sought by the stay application could no longer operate effectively, the Tribunal dismissed the stay application as infructuous and disposed of the related early hearing application. [Paras 12]Stay application dismissed as infructuous; early hearing application disposed of.Final Conclusion: The restoration application was allowed in the interest of justice because the Tribunal's order had not been sent to the appellant as required, and the appeal FPA-PMLA-2205/CHD/2018 was restored subject to payment of costs; the stay application was dismissed as infructuous since possession had already been taken.