Back
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Ankita Maingi – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - CM APPL. 47380/2021 (Exemption)
CM APPL. 47382/2021 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 15011/2021
1. The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 13.12.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, PMLA, confirming the Provisional Attachment order. The petitioners have also assailed the consequential possession notice, issued by respondent no. 1 on 16.12.2021.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners propose to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, PMLA, but since the same is not likely to be taken up in the near future by the Tribunal for want of quorum, they have been compelled to approach this Court. As the respondent no. 1, being aware that the Appellate Tribunal is presently not functional, has already issued the impugned notice for possession to the petitioners, he, therefore, prays that the respondent no. 1 be restrained from taking any action pursuant to the impugned order dated 13.12.2021 till the petitioners appeal and stay application are taken up for consideration by the Appellate Tribunal, PMLA.
3. Issue notice. Mr. Mahajan
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to restrain coercive action based on an impugned order until a statutory appeal is filed and considered by the Appellate Tribunal....
The court upheld the necessity to maintain status quo during ongoing appeal proceedings due to the non-functionality of the appellate tribunal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to direct the maintenance of status quo regarding a possession notice until the appeal and application are considered by the Trib....
The court's decision was based on the principle of maintaining status quo and ensuring that the petitioners' appeal is considered before any further action is taken.
The court's decision was primarily based on the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA, 2002), specifically regarding the appellate remedy, exclusion of pendency period for ....
The appeal process to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the PMLA Act is available to persons aggrieved by an order made by the Adjudicating Authority.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the time period for availing appellate remedies under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) before taking posses....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for comprehensive consideration of the issue by the Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA Act and the implications of the establishment of ....
Attachment under PMLA serves to secure proceeds pending trial; appeal dismissed for lack of merit.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
