PMLA appellate tribunal orders property status quo

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, March 14

Just about a week after the Punjab and Haryana High Court made it clear that property acquired prior to the commission of criminal activity or introduction of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act could not be attached, an Appellate Tribunal at Delhi has ordered the maintenance of status quo with regard to a Chandigarh property in a Rs 109 crore Enforcement Directorate case.

The direction by the tribunal for SAFEMA, FEMA, NDPS, PMLA and PBPT Act came on a petition filed by one of the directors of a company, M/s Kudos Chemie Ltd, Jitendra Singh

The Tribunal was told that a provisional attachment order dated August 30, 2019, was issued by the Adjudicating Authority in terms of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Properties worth more than Rs. 109 crore, including plant, machinery and land was provisionally attached. Besides, residential properties were also provisionally attached.

Appearing before the Tribunal, the counsel for the appellant Harshit Sethi and Viren Sibal submitted that Jitendra Singh received an eviction notice dated March 5 under the provisions of the PMLA regarding the property in Sector 18, Chandigarh.

They added that if the interim order was not passed is in respect the eviction notice, the appellant would be disposed from the property. Describing it as a “residential property”, they added the appellant and his family, including aged parents, was residing in it. Besides, the appellant has no alternative accommodation.

The Tribunal was also told that the property was acquired in 2004 and alleged trascations n the case were of 2012-14. It was also submitted that the property in question was already mortgaged with Punjab National Bank.

Taking up the matter, the Tribunal asserted: “Keeping in view the submissions made at the Bar and in the interest of justice, as on this day, the order of status quo with respect to the property would be proper and legal till the next date of hearing”.

The Tribunal made it clear that the attachment would continue. Besides, legal and constructive possession of enforcement directorate would remain over the properties listed in the notice dated March 5. The appellant was also prohibited from mortgaging or creating charge, lien, third party interest, or alienate movable or immovable properties owned by him. “No encumbrance shall be created by the appellant in respect of the properties. The case will now come up for hearing on April 3.

Attachment to continue

The Tribunal made it clear that the attachment would continue. Besides, legal and constructive possession of the Enforcement Directorate would remain over the properties listed in the notice dated March 5. The appellant was also prohibited from mortgaging or creating charge, lien, third party interest, or alienate movable or immovable properties owned by him. No encumbrance shall be created by the appellant in respect of the properties. The case will now come up for hearing on April 3.