TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1628
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Pandey, Advocate for ED FINAL ORDER By these appeals under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (in short "the Act of 2002"), a challenge has been made to the order dated 11.10.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Retention Order dated 08.08.2024. So far as the appellants are concerned, the impugned order was passed on their application for impleadment. The applications have been dismissed. 2. We would thus refer to the issue involved and raised by the appellants leaving other issues. 3. The appeal has been preferred by Mrs. Bimla Hans alleging that a manifestly illegal and arbitrary search and seizure operation conducted at C-35, 3rd Floor, Anand Niketan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y and application for impleadment has been dismissed and accordingly a challenge to the impugned order has been made. We find that if jewellery was part of the 'streedhan' belonging to the appellant, then why it was at the leased residence of appellant's daughter-in-law who is non else but the wife of the main accused i.e. Mr. Sanjeev Hans. The effort of the appellant seems to be to save the jewellery found at the residence of the main accused. If it was the part of 'streedhan' of the appellant, it could not have been kept at any other places than of the appellant herself. If the statements of appellant's daughter-in-law or others are looked into, the claim of ownership is not consistent and favourable to the appellant. In fact, the main....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....who want to give shelter to her son against whom serious allegation exists. Thus, we do not find any reason to cause interference in the impugned order. Appeal filed by Mr Parkash Singh 4. Mr. Parkash Singh is an Ex-Indian Police Service officer has stated that the representation before the Adjudicating Authority was compelled by the respondent because during the search and seizure operation at the premises i.e. C-35, 3rd Floor, Anand Niketan, New Delhi, a leased residence of the appellant's daughter where seizure of his wrist-watch was made by the respondent. The said wrist-watch Longines Grande Classique de Longines belongs to the appellant. The claim made by the appellant was not accepted by the Adjudicating Authority finding it to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... non else but father-in-law of the main accused. Appeal filed by Mr. Lakshman Dass Hans 5. The appellant has challenged a seizure of wrist-watch identified as Ulysse Nardin 3713-260 said to be belonging to him. It was found at the residence of the appellant's daughter-in-law who is not else but the wife of the main accused i.e. Mr. Sanjeev Hans and otherwise appellant is the father of the accused. Before we go on the story taken by the appellant, we find that in all these three appeals, movable properties belonging to the appellant were found and seized at the leased premises of their daughter-in-law or the daughter i.e. Mrs. Harlovleen. This itself is sufficient to show a cooked-up story otherwise it cannot be that of all the clos....