Court Limits Money Laundering Act Orders, Excludes Properties

The court modified the Provisional Attachment and Eviction Orders under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, limiting the attachment to a specific amount and excluding most of the property from the orders. Both parties agreed that the orders should only apply to properties owned by DAPL, not the petitioner. The court considered the petitioner's lease of the property where Jalsa Mall was developed through a joint venture, acknowledging details provided by the petitioner. The judgment was passed with the parties' consent, disposing of the petition and related application, canceling the next hearing date.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Provisional Attachment Order under PMLA, Eviction Order under PMLA, Ownership and possession of property, Modification of impugned orders.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a Provisional Attachment order dated 30.09.2016 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), which was confirmed by an order dated 14.03.2017. Additionally, an eviction order dated 24.03.2017 was also impugned. The petitioner claimed to be a lessee of a land where a mall, known as Jalsa Mall, was developed through a joint venture. The petitioner provided details of the property, including floor plans and an affidavit listing vacant shops. It was acknowledged that the impugned orders were against properties of another entity, DAPL. Both parties agreed that the impugned orders should only apply to the properties owned and possessed by DAPL. Consequently, the orders were modified to exclude the immovable property forming part of Jalsa Mall, except for nineteen identified shops. The attachment to Jalsa Mall was limited to a specific amount. The court passed the order with the consent of the parties, disposing of the petition and related application, canceling the next hearing date.

This judgment dealt with multiple issues, including the challenge to PMLA orders, ownership and possession of the property, and the modification of impugned orders. The court considered the petitioner's claim as a lessee of the property where Jalsa Mall was developed and the joint venture agreements involved. The court acknowledged the details provided by the petitioner regarding the property and the vacant shops. It was established that the impugned orders were directed at properties of DAPL, not the petitioner. Both parties agreed that the orders should only affect DAPL's properties. Consequently, the court modified the orders to exclude the immovable property of Jalsa Mall, except for nineteen specific shops, and limited the attachment to a specified amount. The judgment was passed with the parties' consent, disposing of the petition and related application, and canceling the next hearing date.

---