Tribunal Orders Property Restoration, Upholds Legal Constraints

The Tribunal directed the respondent to restore possession of the property to the appellant within two weeks, subject to certain conditions to maintain legal and constructive possession. The application for restoration of possession was disposed of, and the appeal was listed for a future date. The Tribunal's decision aimed to address the appellant's immediate need for the property while upholding legal constraints under the PMLA, 2002.

---

---

Issues: Restoration of Possession of Property under PMLA, 2002

Analysis:

Issue 1: Restoration of Possession Application
The appellant filed an application for the restoration of possession of a property located in Chandigarh, which was acquired in 2003 and allotted by the Chandigarh Housing Board. The appellant argued that the property was purchased after obtaining a loan from IDBI and that the Enforcement Directorate had taken possession of the property, causing the appellant and his family to face difficulties and embarrassment by staying in rented accommodation. The appellant contended that restoring possession was crucial to avoid irreparable injury.

Issue 2: Objection Raised by Respondent
The respondent objected to the restoration of possession, arguing that the Tribunal lacked the power to restore possession under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The respondent claimed that the loan for the property had been paid off using proceeds of crime, making it unjust for the appellant to enjoy the property. The respondent also highlighted that a stay application was pending and the stay order was issued before the reply to the application was filed.

Issue 3: Tribunal's Decision
After considering both parties' arguments, the Tribunal disagreed with the respondent's claim that it lacked the power to restore possession. The Tribunal invoked Section 35(2)(h) of the PMLA, 2002, stating that it had the authority to set aside dismissal orders for default. The Tribunal emphasized that restoring possession was akin to passing a stay order and was consequential to the restoration of the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the respondent did not challenge the status quo order previously issued, and after the appeal was restored, the appellant sought restoration of possession.

Issue 4: Prima Facie Case for Restoration
The Tribunal found that the appellant had a prima facie case for restoring possession of the property. It acknowledged that the appellant had no other accommodation after being evicted and staying in difficult conditions. Considering the legal and factual aspects, the Tribunal concluded that failure to restore possession would cause irreparable injury and injustice to the appellant.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal directed the respondent to restore possession of the property to the appellant within two weeks, subject to certain conditions to maintain legal and constructive possession. The application for restoration of possession was disposed of, and the appeal was listed for a future date. The Tribunal's decision aimed to address the appellant's immediate need for the property while upholding legal constraints under the PMLA, 2002.

---