Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2018 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 37 - HC - Money LaunderingOffence under PMLA - attachment orders - property owned and in possession - Held that - Enforcement Director has verified the facts, as stated in the affidavit, and nineteen shops belonging to DAPL are vacant and available. There is also no dispute that the applicability of the impugned orders has to be restricted to the properties owned and in possession of DAPL. In view of the above, the orders dated 30.09.2016 and 14.03.2017 are modified to the extent of directing that the said orders will not be applicable in respect of the immovable property forming a part of Jalsa Mall except the nineteen shops as identified in the additional affidavit affirmed on 09.07.2018. Consequently, the eviction order dated 24.03.2017 shall also not be operative in respect of any property forming a part of the Jalsa Mall other than the nineteen shops as indicated above. It is also to be noted that the said attachment insofar as Jalsa Mall is concerned, is limited to a sum of 2,78,87,000/- as expressly indicated in the impugned order dated 30.09.2016.
Issues:
Challenge to Provisional Attachment Order under PMLA, Eviction Order under PMLA, Ownership and possession of property, Modification of impugned orders. Analysis: The petitioner challenged a Provisional Attachment order dated 30.09.2016 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), which was confirmed by an order dated 14.03.2017. Additionally, an eviction order dated 24.03.2017 was also impugned. The petitioner claimed to be a lessee of a land where a mall, known as Jalsa Mall, was developed through a joint venture. The petitioner provided details of the property, including floor plans and an affidavit listing vacant shops. It was acknowledged that the impugned orders were against properties of another entity, DAPL. Both parties agreed that the impugned orders should only apply to the properties owned and possessed by DAPL. Consequently, the orders were modified to exclude the immovable property forming part of Jalsa Mall, except for nineteen identified shops. The attachment to Jalsa Mall was limited to a specific amount. The court passed the order with the consent of the parties, disposing of the petition and related application, canceling the next hearing date. This judgment dealt with multiple issues, including the challenge to PMLA orders, ownership and possession of the property, and the modification of impugned orders. The court considered the petitioner's claim as a lessee of the property where Jalsa Mall was developed and the joint venture agreements involved. The court acknowledged the details provided by the petitioner regarding the property and the vacant shops. It was established that the impugned orders were directed at properties of DAPL, not the petitioner. Both parties agreed that the orders should only affect DAPL's properties. Consequently, the court modified the orders to exclude the immovable property of Jalsa Mall, except for nineteen specific shops, and limited the attachment to a specified amount. The judgment was passed with the parties' consent, disposing of the petition and related application, and canceling the next hearing date.
|