9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 50 in the application. Respondent says that since she is claiming no right and title in the property, her name may be deleted. Even, no prosecution complaint has been filed under section 8(3)(a) of the Act. Ninety days period has already been expired. Therefore, the impugned order against the appellant is set-aside by allowing the present appeal. - MP-PMLA-4179/CHD/2017 (Stay), FPA-PMLA-2133/CHD/2017 - - - Dated:- 28-3-2019 - Justice Manmohan Singh Chairman For the Appellants : Mr. Sanjeve Deora, C.A. For the Respondent : Mr. Atul Tripathi, Advocate JUDGMENT FPA-PMLA-2133 /CHD/2017 1. The present appeal has been filed by under Section 26 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the order dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The case of the appellant is that no cogent evidence has been provided by the ED in order to show that the appellant has any link and nexus with any alleged accused parties. The appellant has written two letters dated 29th June, 2017 and 12th July, 2017 in order to explain her stand before the ED, however, despite of the same, the appellant has erred as defendant no. 50 in the O.A. 6. In fact in para no. 11, 12 13 of the reply, the following statements were made by the appellant in reply dated 12th July, 201. The same has read as under:- 11. That the Answering Respondent had filed application in the office of the learned AD twice, on June 26,2017 and on July 12,2017 seeking copies of the papers/documents/articles seized by the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y papers/documents/articles seized by the learned AD belong to the Answering Respondent or have any connection with the Answering Respondent, the Answering Respondent may kindly be considered not to be connected in the matter of Original Application No. 93 of 2017 in ECIR No. CDZO/06/2016. 7. The impugned order was passed on 12th September, 2017, it covers 123 pages. There are fifty respondents. Upto page no. 118, the facts and contents of the reply are reproduced. Individual reply filed by the parties have not been discussed or considered. 8. Even in the discussion and finding, no plea of the appellant has been referred wherein it was stated that the appellant was the buyer of the property and Mrs. Nirmala Jain was the seller of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
