TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 375
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an inadvertent omission, this tribunal failed to adjudicate the Applicant's pending Modification Application filed in December, 2024 under Section 35(2)(f) of the Act. In 2012, the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short "CBI") registered FIR RC No. BD1/2012/E/0003 against Century Communication Ltd. (for short "CCL") On 29.03.2016, the Respondent issued Provisional Attachment Order No. 02/2016 under Section 5 of the Act, provisionally attaching various properties of CCL's promoters, including the Residential Property. The Applicant objected before the Learned Adjudicating Authority (for short "Ld. AA"), but on 22.09.2016 the Ld. AA passed an order confirming the attachment of 6 properties including the Residential Property. On 04.10.2016, the Respondent issued a notice directing the Appellant to handover the possession of the Residential Property, pursuant to the attachment order passed by the Ld. AA. The Appellant, aggrieved by the said confirmation order dated 22.09.2016, passed by the Ld. AA, filed the Appeal under Section 26 of the Act, challenging the attachment only w.r.t. to the Residential Property, before this Hon'ble Tribunal. Further, this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the arguments on all the issues. He contended that this constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record and calls for review, as envisaged by Section 35(2)(f) of the Act. He contended that failure to decide the Modification Application has resulted in substantial injustice to the Applicant. The continued obligation to deposit Rs. 2,50,000 per month, fixed in 2016, is now oppressive. The Applicant's income and resources have contracted dramatically, such that compliance threatens the Applicant's basic right to shelter. He stated that since the original interim order, the Applicant's financial position has deteriorated materially, including loss of business revenues and unexpected medical expenses for dependents, which were neither foreseeable, nor available at the time of the 2016 order. This new and important matter warrants reconsideration of the market rent condition. Moreover, the appellant and her family members are involved in multiple litigations across various courts. Due to her financial stress, the appellant is represented by Legal Aid counsel in many of these matters. He pointed out the copies of letters appointing Legal Aid Counsel on behalf of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amended), an ECIR vide DLZO/10/2013 dated 20.06.2013 was recorded and investigation under the provisions of PMLA, 2002 was initiated. Based on the facts revealed during investigation in ECIR/ DLZO/10/2013 dated 20.06.2013, ED issued Provisional Attachment Order no. 02 of 2016 dated 29.03.2016, wherein, among others, property situated at 6, Southern Avenue, Maharani Bagh, Delhi was attached u/s. 5 of PMLA, 2002 and was subsequently confirmed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 22.09.2016 in OC 588/2016. After confirmation of the said order, the Directorate issued notices u/s. 8(4) of PMLA, 2002 for taking possession of the said property. However, based on the appeal and stay application u/s. 26 of PMLA, 2002 filed by the appellants herein vide FPA-PMLA-1525, 1499 and 1578/DLI/2016, this Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 21.10.2016 directed the appellants (herein applicant) to pay a monthly rent of Rs 2.5 lacs during the pendency of the appeal. However, the they paid rent for the period till April 2019 only. The prosecution complaint was filed on 18.07.2018, before Special PMLA Court, Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi. The cognizance of the said complaint has been taken ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a trial under the 2002 Act which is obviously in respect of offence of money-laundering, the Special Court finds that the offence of money-laundering has not taken place or the property is not involved in money-laundering, it shall order release of such property to the person entitled to receive it. Once the possession of the property is taken in terms of Sub-section (4) and the finding in favour of the person is rendered by the Special Court thereafter and during the interregnum if the property changes hands and title vest in some third party, it would result in civil consequences even to third party. That is certainly avoidable unless it is absolutely necessary in the peculiar facts of a particular case so as to invoke the option available Under Subsection (4) of Section 8. 74. Indisputably, statutory Rules have been framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers Under Section 73 of the 2002 Act regarding the manner of taking possession of attached or frozen properties confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority in 2013, and also regarding restoration of confiscated property in 2019. Suffice it to observe that direction Under Section 8(4) for taking possession of the....