2017 (4) TMI 926 - HC - Money Laundering

Court affirms attachment under Money Laundering Act, defers eviction pending appeal. Stay petition rights emphasized.

The Court confirmed the provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, finding the properties involved in money laundering. ... Money laundering - PMLA Act - petition for stay - Held that:- First appeal is a matter of statutory right and though there is no provision for stay, inherent power is vested with the Appellate Authority to grant interim order protecting the interest of the parties, pending disposal of the appeal. The appeal to the Appellate Tribunal is provided under Chapter 6 of PMLA Act and though under Section 26 of the said Act, there is no express provision for filing petition for stay, in the light of the settled legal position, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly entered petition for stay and at the request of the learned counsel for the respondent, namely the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate, Chennai, granted time till 18.04.2017 to file counter with a liberty to file a rejoinder. It is also pertinent to point out at this juncture that provisional order of attachment has also been made absolute and it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the immovable property has also been mortgaged with M/s.Vijaya Bank, Mount Road, Chennai. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner will not further encumber or alienate or create any third party right in respect of the immovable property, which is the subject matter of attachment and the said submission, on instructions, is placed on record. Petition for stay has been posted on 18.04.2017 by the first respondent and taking into consideration the averment made by the petitioner in para 11 of the affidavit that her husband is suffering from paralysis and coronary artery disease and living with stunt in the heart and is still under treatment to cure his paralysis and that she along with her family are residing in the premises in question, this Court is of the view that till 18.04.2017, further proceedings in pursuant to the impugned notice of eviction dated 28.02.2017 passed by the third respondent is to be deferred. Issues:1. Confirmation of provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.2. Legality of taking possession of attached property pending appeal.3. Provision for stay during appeal proceedings.4. Consideration of health issues and family residence in the decision-making process.Issue 1: Confirmation of provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002The case involved a provisional attachment of assets under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, against the petitioner's husband and another individual. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the attachment, concluding that the defendants had committed scheduled offenses, generated proceeds of crime, and laundered them. The properties attached were deemed proceeds of crime or involved in money laundering.Issue 2: Legality of taking possession of attached property pending appealThe petitioner and her husband, aggrieved by the confirmation of the attachment, filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Meanwhile, the fourth respondent issued a notice of eviction for the property in question. The petitioner challenged the legality of the eviction, arguing that the fourth respondent should have waited for the appeal's disposal before taking possession.Issue 3: Provision for stay during appeal proceedingsThe Appellate Tribunal entertained a petition for stay filed by the appellants. While there was no express provision for filing a stay petition under the PMLA Act, the Tribunal granted time for filing a counter and directed the matter to be listed for a hearing. The Court emphasized the statutory right to appeal and the inherent power of the Appellate Authority to grant interim orders to protect parties' interests during appeal proceedings.Issue 4: Consideration of health issues and family residenceThe petitioner's counsel highlighted the health condition of the petitioner's husband, who was undergoing treatment for paralysis and coronary artery disease. It was also mentioned that the property in question was mortgaged with a bank. Considering these factors and the pending appeal, the Court directed the third respondent to defer further proceedings on the eviction notice until the date of the stay petition hearing.In conclusion, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition, directing the deferment of eviction proceedings pending the appeal hearing. The decision took into account the legal provisions, the health condition of the petitioner's husband, and the residence of the petitioner and her family in the disputed property.