9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al only. - MP-PMLA-4192/AHD/2018 (Misc.) MP-PMLA-3939/AHD/2017 (Misc.) MP-PMLA-2933/AHD/2016 (Misc.) MP-PMLA-2934/AHD/2016 (A.D.) FPA-PMLA-610/AHD/2014 - - - Dated:- 10-7-2018 - Justice Manmohan Singh, Chairman For the Appellant : Shri Navin K. Pahwa, Sr. Advocate Shri Mohit D. Ram, Advocate Shri Nakul Mohta, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri A.K. Tripathi, Advocate JUDGEMENT MP-PMLA-4192/AHD/2018 (Misc.) in FPA-PMLA-610/AHD/2014 1. The above-mentioned Appeal under Section 26 of the PMLA 2002 has been filed against the order dated 06.06.2014 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in Original Complaint No. 225 of 2013 ( the Impugned Order ). The Adjudicating Authority by the Impugned Order confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order No. 08/2013 dated 18.10.2013 by which the Respondent attaching 33,45,729 equity shares of National Multi Commodity Exchange of India ( NMCE ) held by the Appellants/Applicants. By this order, I propose to decide the application for contempt filed by appellant being no. MP-PMLA-4192/AHD/2018 seeking direction against the respondent no. 1 to comply the status quo order passed by this Tribunal. 2. Brief facts are that after passing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was admitted position that the interim order was passed in the morning session in the presence of counsel appearing on behalf of both sides. 7. In response to the emails sent by the Appellant, HDFC Bank informed them that the transfer of the equity shares to the Respondent had been done on the basis of the instructions dated 02.11.2017 and 17.11.2017 received from the Respondent and the same were transferred on 28.11.2017 as admitted by both parties. HDFC Bank wrote to the Respondents on 14.12.2017 informing them that on the basis of the instructions received from them the equity shares held by the Appellants had been transferred to them. The Respondent was requested to take appropriate steps in view of the status quo Order passed by this Tribunal. 8. The Counsel for the Appellants on 22.12.2017 wrote to the counsel for the Respondent informing him that since the status quo order had been breached his clients be requested to restore the status quo ante. 9. HDFC Bank wrote to the Appellants on 26.12.2017 requesting them to get directly in touch with the Respondents. 10. The Appellants on 29.12.2017 wrote to HDFC Bank reiterating their request for the transfer of the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsfer has been effected only after the Order was passed. 18. It is also undisputed fact that the appellants had filed an Application for Direction and stay of the Letter dated 03.07.2017 issued by the Respondents to the MSC Share Transfer Agent Limited purportedly under Section 8(4) of the PMLA 2002 seeking to take possession of 33,45,729 equity shares of M/s NMCE belonging to the applicants and this Tribunal has issued notice on the Application filed by the Appellants by its order dated 26.10.2017. The respondents were directed to file their reply to the application within two weeks. The application had been directed to be listed on 28.11.2017. Both the Respondents and the HDFC Bank had been informed of the Application filed by the Appellants. They had been requested not to take any coercive steps till the disposal of the Application. 19. It is the admitted position that on 28.11.2017 that this Tribunal after hearing both sides passed the following order in favour of the Appellants: The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the meanwhile, the respondent has issued the notice under Section8(4). The matter is already coming up for final disposal on 8th Jan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal has not been complied with as there is a breach on the face it. Counsel for the respondent has referred few decisions in support of his submissions that the application filed by the appellant is not maintainable and once the process of transfer of shares have been completed, the interim order is become infructuous and the question of contempt does not arise. As far as referring the decisions by the counsel are concerned, since I am not inclined to grant the first prayer, thus the same has no bearing. However, I am of the opinion that rule of law must be prevailed upon and orders of the superior courts must be complied with otherwise system would be collapsed. It has been noticed even in another appeal no. 1905/2017 between Vinod Kumar Goyal Vs. Enforcement Directorate, the interim order passed by the bench on 15.11.2017 has not complied with which was passed in the presence of both counsel. Counsel for respondent after filing similar application for issuance of contempt petition has now agreed to restored the status quo in the original position as per order passed on 09.07.2018. 23. In case of Century Flour Mills Ltd. Vs. Suppiah, passed by the Hon‟ble Madras High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
