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>Special Judge's property release order in money laundering case set aside for violating PMLA Rules 3 and 3A procedures</h1> <h3>Directorate Of Enforcement Through Assistant Director Bhopal Zonal Office Versus Dr. Vinod Bhandari 181, Dr. Mahak Bhandari 181, Dr. Manjushree Bhandari 181</h3> Directorate Of Enforcement Through Assistant Director Bhopal Zonal Office Versus Dr. Vinod Bhandari 181, Dr. Mahak Bhandari 181, Dr. Manjushree Bhandari ... Issues Involved:1. Whether the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the basis of non-maintainability as the impugned order is an interlocutory orderRs.2. Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Special Court is suffering from infirmity, illegality, and improprietyRs.Summary:Issue 1: Non-maintainability as Interlocutory OrderThe petitioner contended that the order passed by the Special Court is final in nature because the property substituted will never be retained if the case decides in favor of the Directorate of Enforcement. The order under challenge finally decides the rights of the prosecution and cannot be considered as an interlocutory order. On the contrary, the respondents argued that the order was passed in interim form and cannot be treated as a final order. The court referred to various judgments, including Parmeshwari Devi Vs. State & Anr., and concluded that if the order is finally deciding the rights and liabilities of the parties, even in an interim stage, it will be treated as a final order. Therefore, the revision against such an order lies.Issue 2: Infirmity, Illegality, and Impropriety of the Impugned OrderThe court examined the legality of the order passed by the Special Court. The order was mainly based on the second proviso of Section 8(8) of PMLA, 2002, which allows the Special Court to consider the claim of the claimant for the restoration of properties during the trial. However, the court noted that the applicants could not be treated as claimants as defined in the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Restoration of Property) Rules, 2016. The Special Court did not follow the manner specified in Rules 3 and 3A of the PMLA Rules, 2016, and did not clarify how the applicants fit the definition of 'claimants.' Therefore, the impugned order was found to be in violation of the respective provisions of PMLA, 2002, and PMLA Rule, 2016.Conclusion:The revision petition was allowed, and the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge, PMLA Court, was set aside due to gross infirmity and illegality.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
