TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 774
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in W.P.No. 13609 of 2014, No appearance - R2 & R3 in W.P.No. 6329 of 2013 & R3 & R4 in W.P.No. 13609 of 2014. COMMON ORDER The Writ Petition in 6329 of 2013 has been filed to quash the possession Notice dated 26.11.2012 issued by the first respondent and also to direct the first respondent not to proceed against the property at New No.16, Old No.3, Porur Somasundaram Street, North Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017 pursuant to the confirmation of Order of attachment in O.C.No.142 of 2012 dated 04.09.2012. 2. The Writ Petition in 13609 of 2014 has been filed to quash the Form III Possession Notice dated 06.05.2014 issued by the second respondent. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that one Lakshmibai Ammal is the original owner of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agreement between the said Lakshmibai Ammal and the petitioner' father-in-law and the entire sale consideration has been paid and before the sale has been registered, the said Lakshmibai Ammal died in the year 1986. Thereafter, some documents have been created by the second respondent as if she is the legal heir of the said Lakshmibai Ammal and dealt with the property and sold the property to the third respondent. Now proceedings have been initiated against the second respondent on the ground that the said proceeds is out of the crime and in the same process, interim attachment of the property has been passed under Section 5 The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 and thereafter, final attachment has been made under Section 8 of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It is also not disputed that document said to have been executed by the third respondent is forged by impersonation. In fact, she claimed to be the daughter of the original owner Lakshmibai Ammal and dealt with the property. These facts have not been disputed. On the basis of the above forgery and impersonation, the property has been purchased by the third respondent, against whom proceedings have been initiated under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 and for the offences under sections Prevention of Corruption Act. These aspects have also not been disputed. Based on the above said documents, proceedings has been initiated. Accordingly, provisional attachment has been made under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of property or record seized under section 17 or section 18 and record a finding to that effect, such attachment or retention of the seized property or record shall- (a) continue during the pendency of the proceedings relating to any scheduled offence before a court; and (b) become final after the guilt of the person is proved in the trial court and order of such trial court becomes final. (4) Where the provisional order of attachment made under sub-section (1) of section 5 has been confirmed under sub-section (3), the Director or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf shall forthwith take the possession of the attached property. 8. The above Section makes it very clear that if other than the owner, anybody claim as a t....