TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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>Appellate Tribunal orders status quo on immovable properties in money laundering case involving agricultural lands</h1> <h3>Charan Singh Versus Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Dehradun</h3> The Appellate Tribunal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act directed maintenance of status quo regarding immovable properties of appellants ... Money Laundering - physical possession over the agricultural lands - direction to maintain the 'status quo' with respect to all the immovable properties of the appellants/applicants involved in the present appeals - HELD THAT:- Respondent seeks four weeks time to file the replies to the applications, which is not objected by the learned counsel for the appellants/applicants. Let the same be filed within four weeks with advance copies to be served on the other side. List the matters on 26th April, 2021. Issues:1. Urgent hearing of appeals and interim stay applications.2. Fresh appeals filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.3. Applications seeking stay of impugned order and permission to harvest crops.4. Dispute over physical possession of agricultural lands and crops grown thereon.5. Directions regarding maintenance of 'status quo' and conditions imposed.Detailed Analysis:1. The appellant filed applications seeking an early hearing of appeals and interim stay based on grounds mentioned therein. The Tribunal considered the requests and disposed of the applications promptly.2. Fresh appeals were filed under section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, challenging an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Notice was issued to the Respondent, who sought time to file replies, which was granted. The appellants were also given time to file rejoinders subsequently.3. The appellants sought stay of an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority to harvest crops grown on their agricultural lands. They argued that their livelihood depended on agriculture and that the Respondent had taken symbolic possession without proper notice. The Respondent objected to granting a stay order, claiming physical possession as per law.4. The Tribunal observed a dispute over physical possession of the attached agricultural lands and crops. To maintain the 'status quo,' both parties were directed to preserve the properties and crops until the next hearing. The appellants were allowed to harvest wheat crops under the supervision of local officers, with certain conditions imposed to safeguard the properties.5. Directions were issued to both parties to maintain the 'status quo' regarding the immovable properties involved in the appeals. The parties were prohibited from creating third-party rights, disposing of the properties, or changing their nature. The Respondent was to maintain legal and constructive possession, while attachments were to continue.In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed urgent hearing requests, considered fresh appeals under the PMLA, and resolved disputes over possession of agricultural lands and crops by issuing detailed directions for maintaining the 'status quo' with specific conditions to safeguard the properties involved.
TaxTMI 
