2017 (3) TMI 1107 - HC - Money Laundering

Money laundering - order of provisional attachment - Held that - Provisional order of attachment has also been made absolute and it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the immovable property has also been mortgaged with M/s.Vijaya Bank, Mount Road, Chennai. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner will not further encumber or alienate or create any third party right in respect of the immovable property, which is the subject matter of attachment and the said submission, on instructions, is placed on record. In the light of the fact that petition for stay has been posted on 18.04.2017 by the first respondent and taking into consideration the averment made by the petitioner in para 11 of the affidavit that he is suffering from paralysis and coronary artery disease and living with stunt in the heart and is still under treatment to cure his paralysis and that he along with his family are residing in the premises in question, this Court is of the view that till 18.04.2017 further proceedings in pursuant to the impugned notice of eviction dated 28.02.2017 in F.No.ECIR/09/CEZO/2012 passed by the third respondent is to be deferred. Though the petitioner prays for larger relief, this Court, in the light of the above facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner, directs the third respondent to defer further proceedings in pursuant to the impugned notice of eviction dated 28.02.2017 in F.No.ECIR/09/CEZO/2012 till 18.04.2017 i.e., till the date of hearing of the stay petition before the first respondent/Appellate Tribunal.

Summary

Issues:
- Alleged commission of offences under Sections 465, 468 r/w. 471 and 420 IPC
- Order of provisional attachment under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
- Confirmation of provisional attachment by the Adjudicating Authority
- Appeal against the order of confirmation pending before the Appellate Tribunal
- Impugned notice of eviction issued during pendency of appeal
- Petitioner's health condition and possession of the attached property

Analysis:
1. The case involved allegations of offences under Sections 465, 468 r/w. 471 and 420 IPC, leading to the registration of a case by the Central Crime Branch, Chennai City. Subsequently, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was invoked, resulting in a provisional attachment of assets by the fourth respondent under Section 5(1) of the said Act.

2. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the provisional attachment after finding that the defendants had committed scheduled offences, generated proceeds of crime, and laundered them. This decision was challenged by the petitioner and his wife through an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

3. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner received an impugned notice of eviction, prompting the filing of a writ petition challenging the legality of the eviction. The petitioner argued that the fourth respondent should have waited for the appeal's disposal before taking possession of the property.

4. The Senior Counsel for the petitioner highlighted the petitioner's health conditions and the fact that the property was mortgaged with a bank, making alienation or creation of third-party rights impossible. On the other hand, the respondents argued that there was no provision for stay pending appeal under the PMLA Act.

5. The Court acknowledged the statutory right of appeal and the inherent power of the Appellate Authority to grant interim orders to protect the parties' interests during the appeal process. Considering the circumstances, including the petitioner's health issues and the pending appeal, the Court directed the third respondent to defer further proceedings on the eviction notice until the date of the stay petition hearing before the Appellate Tribunal.

6. The Court, without delving into the merits of the petitioner's claim, disposed of the writ petition, ordering a deferment of eviction proceedings until the hearing of the stay petition before the Appellate Tribunal. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed as a result of the judgment.