9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. Respondent-ED even prima facie is not able to establish any collusion/connection of the Appellant and accused person/seller. The impugned order is not sustainable against the appellant. The same is set-aside by allowing the appeal. Consequently, Provisional Attachment Order against the said impugned property 15A/18, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi is also quashed. - MP-PMLA-4144/DLI/2017 (Stay), MP-PMLA-4145/DLI/2017 (Exem.) And FPA-PMLA-2119/DLI/2017 - - - Dated:- 23-4-2019 - Justice Manmohan Singh Chairman And Shri G.C. Mishra Member For the Appellant : Shri H.S. Kohli, Advocate, Shri Raghav Mehdiratta, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Nitesh Rana, Advocate, Shri A.R. Aditya, Advocate And Shri Atul Tripathi, Advocate JUDGEMENT FPA-PMLA-2119/DLI/2017, MP-PMLA-4144/DLI/2017 (Stay) MPPMLA- 4145/DLI/2017 (Exem.) 1. The present appeal has been filed against order dated 27.10.2016 (communicated to the Appellant on 21.11.2017), passed by the Adjudicating Authority, who confirmed the provisional attachment made by the Complainant in respect of property bearing no. 15A/18, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsuant thereto a complaint was filed before the adjudicating authority on 09.06.2016, u/s Sec. 5 of PMLA against the accused persons, arrayed herein as Respondent No. 3-11. 8. The provisional attachment order passed by the Complainant, sent a notice for Bimla Wadhwa, Respondent No. 9 vide letter dated 30.01.2017, alleging her to be resident of property in question, was in fact received upon the aforesaid property by the appellant in the month of June, 2017. The appellant immediately approached the Dy. Director, with Directorate of Enforcement. 9. The notice dated 30.01.2017 was sent on the property, in question, in the name of Smt. Bimla Wadhwa. She had clarified her position and claimed the title of the said property, being it lawful bonafide owner, by furnishing the relevant document of conveyance executed in her favor by the erstwhile owner, after receipt of lawful sale consideration. The copy of the sale deed executed in her favor on 02.02.2015 in respect of property in question, which was also registered with the Sub Registrar of Documents was also furnished to the Dy. Director, Directorate of Enforcement, PMLA, alongwith representat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Sub Registrar of Basai Darapur, in response whereof E Sub Registrar -2, Basai Darapur, pointed out that the information has already been sent to the Enforcement Directorate. In view thereof there is nothing to show that the property is already sold by the D-7 to the other purchaser. D-7 has failed to produce the complete copy of Regd. Sale Deed which would disclose the sale transaction . 13. The Adjudicating Authority has observed that no details of receipt of payment of sale consideration in respect of sale transaction qua property in question. As a matter of fact, the sale consideration was paid to the parties for sale purchase of the property in question through banking channels. The appellant had paid the sale consideration to the tune of ₹ 90,00,000/- by raising loan from ICICI Bank, which was sanctioned vide letter dated 29.01.2015 the same was tendered for payment to the erstwhile owner by way of demand drafts. 14. The copy of letter of sanction of home loan in respect of suit property is annexed hereto as Annexure P/6, which was disbursed in due course and the demand drafts for sale consideration of the suit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,Volume No. 9430, on Pages 55 to 64, dated 21.12.1999 in respect of entire first floor without terrace roof rights out of above mentioned property; b. Sale Deed Regd. as No. 9766, in Addl. Book No. I,.Volume No. 9430, on Pages 45 to 54, dated 21.12.1999 in respect of entire second floor without terrace roof rights out of above mentioned property; c. Sale Deed Regd. as No. 640, in Addl. Book No. I, Volume No. 9460, on Pages 61 to 66, dated 20.01.2000 in respect of undivided share of entire ground floor without terrace roof rights out of above mentioned property; d. Sale Deed Regd. as No. 6401 in Addl. Book No. I, Volume No. 9460, on Pages 67 to 72, dated 20.01.2000 in respect of undivided share of entire ground floor without terrace roof rights out of above mentioned property. On the basis of above mentioned Regd. Deeds, (1) Shri Arun Bhatia and Smt. Deepika Bhatia above named have become the complete owners of above mentioned entire property. ii) Shri Arun Bhatia and Smt. Deepika Bhatia have sold their all right, title and interest in respect of above mentioned entire property to Smt. Neelam Jolly w/o Shri Prav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, indivisible and impartiable ownership rights of the underneath land measuring 200 Sq. Yards, with super structure situated in the abadi of East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008, for her bonafide needs and requirements, with fitting and fixtures, with watter and electric connections in working order along with separate water and electric meters, with common lift, and the Vendee has agreed to purchase the same for a sum of ₹ 90,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Lac only). 18. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that once the entire payment of the purchase consideration was made, the Appellant became owner of the said Property and had acquired proprietary rights and title a claimant to the said Property in terms of the Proviso to Section 8(2), Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 being interested/aggrieved party. 19. It is also correct that the Appellant is not even named/ mentioned in the FIR or the ECIR or the captioned Original Complaint. It was not even the case of the Enforcement Directorate/Respondent No. 1 that at the time when the PAO was issued and at the time of filing of the captioned O.C., that the Appellant was involved or connected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us, the Respondent No. 1 and the Adjudicating Authority have not complied with the mandatory statutory requirement of the Proviso to Section 8(2), PMLA. The appellant had interest in the property in question, but no mandatory notice required under section 8(2) was served. Section 8(2) is a mandatory provision, it is mandated under the proviso that if property is claimed by a person other than accused, he shall also be given an opportunity of being heard to prove that the property is not involved in money laundering. Despite of above, no notice was given. 24. The appellant is, no doubt, claimant in the attached property. It is not understood why the requisite notice was not issued by the respondent and Adjudicating Authority. Despite being Appellant s claim to the said Property, Respondent failed to fulfill its statutory duty, in terms of Rule 3(2) PML (Issuance of Provisional Attachment Order) Rules, 2013, to supply a copy of the Provisional Attachment Order to the Appellant at the time of the issuance of the same. 25. The Respondent-ED even prima facie is not able to establish any collusion/connection of the Appellant and accused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
