TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Orders Status Quo in Property Dispute under Anti-Money Laundering Law</h1> <h3>Om Prakash Chautala Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh</h3> The Tribunal ordered both parties to maintain status quo regarding a property subject to an attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The ... Money Laundering - attachment of property which is used by the family members of appellant - proceeds of crime - HELD THAT:- There is nothing on record to show that the property are not used by the family members of the appellant. Liberty is granted to the respondent to verify the actual position of the property and filed the status report by the next date of hearing. Since, as stated by ld. counsel for the appellant that the property in question is in occupation of the family members of the appellant and Judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Madras, there is a prima facie case in favour of the appellant at this stage, if the appellant and his family members are evicted from the said property as it will cause irreparable injury to the appellant and his family members, so balance of convenience lies in passing a status quo order till the next date of hearing at this stage. Both the parties are directed to maintain the “status quo‟ with respect to the property in question till the next date of hearing subject to conditions imposed - Attachment shall continue till further order - ‘Status quo’ be maintained at this stage with respect to those properties till next date of hearing. Issues Involved:1. Notice under Section 8(4) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and its implications.2. Interpretation of 'possession' in Section 8(4) of PMLA.3. Balance of convenience and irreparable injury.4. Conditions for maintaining status quo and attachment of property.Detailed Analysis:1. Notice under Section 8(4) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and its implications:A fresh appeal was filed under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, against the order dated 08.11.2019 by the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant received an eviction notice under Section 8(4) of PMLA dated 12.12.2019, directing them to hand over possession of a farm house located at E-block, Asola Farms, New Delhi, within 10 days. The appellant contended that the property is occupied by Sumarkhan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., owned by the appellant's family members. The appellant argued that 'possession' does not mean actual possession at this stage and cited a judgment from the Hon’ble High Court of Madras to support this interpretation.2. Interpretation of 'possession' in Section 8(4) of PMLA:The appellant relied on the judgment in A. Kamarunnisa Ghori vs. The Chairperson, Prevention of Money Laundering, Union of India, which interpreted Section 8(4) of PMLA. The judgment stated that the Director is empowered to take possession of the attached property if the provisional order of attachment is confirmed under Section 8(3). However, it emphasized that 'possession' should be understood as symbolic or constructive, not actual physical possession, until the conclusion of criminal proceedings. The judgment highlighted that taking actual physical possession before the attachment attains finality would infringe upon the constitutional and human rights of the accused and other lawful occupants.3. Balance of convenience and irreparable injury:The appellant argued that they have a good prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lies in their favor. They contended that if the eviction notice is enforced, they would suffer irreparable injury, which cannot be compensated monetarily. The appellant undertook not to alienate, transfer, or dispose of the property and offered to deposit Rs. 1,94,52,347/- as a fixed deposit equivalent to the proceeds of crime.4. Conditions for maintaining status quo and attachment of property:The Tribunal noted that the property was attached to the extent of Rs. 1,94,52,347/- and is currently used by the appellant's family members. Given the prima facie case and potential irreparable injury to the appellant and their family, the Tribunal ordered both parties to maintain status quo concerning the property until the next hearing. The conditions set were:- The attachment shall continue until further orders.- Status quo to be maintained regarding the property.- The appellant is prohibited from transferring, converting, or disposing of the property.- No encumbrances shall be created on the property.- The respondent is allowed to take symbolic possession if not already taken.- The respondent may consider the appellant's offer to deposit Rs. 1,94,52,347/- as a fixed deposit.- The respondent is allowed to file a reply to the stay application within four weeks.The application was listed for hearing on 20th February 2020, and the order was to be given dasti to both parties.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
