TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10. The Appellant Original Defendant No. 6 submits that the property involved in the Original Complaint No. 299/2014 is the property not owned by the Appellant Original Defendant No. 6 but the said property is tenancy property and the Appellant Original Defendant No. 6 is the Tenant and the said property cannot be confiscated in the provisions of Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002. A copy of tenancy agreement dated 5.3.2016 and rent receipts are annexed herewith and marked Exhibit "E". (Colly.)" "11. The Appellant Original Defendant No. 6 submits that the property at Room No.3, Ambulkarwadi, Gokhale Road, South Dadar, Mumbai-28 shown at Para No.21 of Provisional Attachment Order No.5/2014 dated 27/3/2014 is the property of tenancy ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n submission was submitted by the Appellant Defendant No. 6 the learned Chairperson, K. Raamamoorthy had declined to grant time without assigning any reasons and the learned Chairperson had posted the matter for pronouncement of judgment by saying reserve for judgment without declaring the proposed date for pronouncing the judgment, therefore, the judgment dated 21st August, 2014 pronounced in absence of Appellant Original Defendant No. 6 which violates the principle of natural justice." "13. The Appellant Original Defendant No. 6 states that the statement recorded by the Assistant director on 8/02/2010 at Mumbai, though under coercion, but he made it clear that the alleged above said property is the tenancy property for which he has mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olly.)." "15. The Appellant-Defendant No. 6 states that the payment received by him from above said sale agreement has been paid by him at time executing tenancy agreement. It is submitted that the amount received from sale agreement was kept reserve for investing in house property. It is submitted that the Appellant-Defendant No. 6 executed the tenancy agreement on 05/03/2006 and made the payment out of reserved for the investing in house property. 4. The impugned order was challenged by the appellant before us. Vide Order dated 16th April, 2015, the detailed order was passed by this Tribunal in the application for interim stay under section 35 of the Act. The operative part of the said Order is read as under:- "Consequently taking ....