Appeal under Prevention of Money Laundering Act - Separate appeals allowed, stay on property notice pending.

The appeal under section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the Adjudicating Authority's order involved defects due to a joint appeal by three appellants. Separate appeals were allowed, and a reply was sought from the Respondent. A stay application was made regarding the notice to vacate properties, with arguments on property valuation and substitution with fixed deposits. A prima facie case for maintaining the status quo on properties was established, with both parties directed to comply. The Respondent was given time to respond, and the matter was scheduled for a hearing with an order to follow.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Appeal filed under section 26 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against an order by the Adjudicating Authority.
2. Defects in the appeal - joint appeal filed by three appellants.
3. Stay application filed regarding the notice to vacate immovable properties.
4. Request for substitution of attachment of properties with fixed deposits.
5. Dispute over the valuation of properties and alleged proceeds of crime.
6. Prima facie case for issue of ad-interim order of 'status quo' regarding the properties.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed under section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against an order by the Adjudicating Authority. Upon hearing, notice was issued to the Respondent who sought six weeks to file a reply in the appeal.

2. Defects were pointed out in the appeal as it was a joint appeal filed by three appellants, which is not permissible under law. The appellants agreed to file separate memos of appeal for two appellants and pay the appeal filing fee. The Respondent was directed to file a reply within six weeks.

3. A stay application was filed regarding a notice to vacate immovable properties within 10 days. Arguments were made regarding the cultivation of mustard crop on one property and the residential nature of the other. An application was filed for substitution of attachment with fixed deposits pending appeal.

4. The appellants contended that the current values of the properties exceeded the alleged proceeds of crime. The Respondent disputed this, citing unregistered documents and manufacturing of evidence. The appellants offered fixed deposits in place of the attached properties.

5. A prima facie case for an ad-interim order of 'status quo' was considered for the properties. Both parties were directed to maintain the status quo, with attachments continuing and legal possession with the Enforcement Directorate.

6. The Respondent was given three weeks to file a reply to the stay application and instructed to consider the appellants' offers. The matter was listed for a hearing on 1st April, 2020, with the order to be provided to both parties.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment comprehensively, outlining the legal arguments and decisions made by the Tribunal.

---