APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI MP-PMLA-12381/MUM/2023(Exem.)

MP-PMLA-12380/MUM/2023(Stay)

FPA-PMLA-6185/MUM/2023 Bimla Devi … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellants : Mr. Ankur Chawla, Mr. Adit Pujari, Mr. Aamir Khan, Mr. Shivam Tandon, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Aditya Singla, Ms. Peehu Hooda, Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Advocates CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI V. ANANDARAJAN : MEMBER

ORDER

23.08.2023

JUDGEMENT

FPA-PMLA-6185/MUM/2023 Vide this order, the application filed by the appellant/applicant on

05.07.2023 for grant of stay on the operation of the order dated

17.10.2019 passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA, 2002) and also for stay of the Eviction Notice dated 27.06.2023 issued to the appellant/applicant is proposed to be disposed of.

2.The relevant facts, in brief, are that subsequent to the order dated

06.06.2023 passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) dated 27.12.2022 passed by the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai in ECIR number ECIR/02/MBZO-II/2018, a notice dated 27.06.2023 was issued to the appellant/applicant under section 8(4) for eviction of the appellant/applicant and her family members from the property in question, i.e., house with land admeasuring 1 Bigha, 10 Biswa bearing No. 11 & 12 (old), New No. 5, Part of Mustatil No.104, Killa No.12, Village Dera Mandi, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi, and to take physical possession thereof. The said notice was received by the appellant/applicant on 30.06.2023. It is prayed that stay of the operation of the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority be granted, as also an interim stay of the aforesaid Eviction Notice.

3.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant that the property in question is a residential property which is occupied by the appellant/applicant and her entire joint family, including her grandchildren. Taking physical possession of the said immovable property by the respondent department will render the family homeless as neither the appellant/applicant nor her family members have any other place of residence. It is submitted that the property is already under attachment and there is no ground for the respondent department to assume that the appellant/applicant will try to alienate the property or create any third-

party interest in it.

4.It is further contended by the learned counsel that the appellant/applicant has not been named as an accused either in the scheduled offence or in the PMLA offence. The property in question is the personal property of the appellant/applicant, and the consideration for the purchase of the property amounting to Rs.17.5 lakh was paid by cheque, for which a loan of Rs.20 lakh was availed from the Bank of Nainital. The property has nothing to do with the proceeds of crime and there is no connection whatsoever of the appellant/applicant with the alleged proceeds of crime, as it is an admitted fact that the appellant/applicant has not been arrayed as an accused. The Directorate’s case is that the loan taken from the bank was repaid within a short period of time, and there are cash deposits in the account of the appellant/applicant. In this regard, it is claimed that the appellant/applicant‟s daughter-in-law had remitted the amounts to her.

5.The Ld. counsel for the appellant/applicant further submitted that the property was attached primarily based on the statement claimed to have been made by the appellant/applicant‟s son, the main accused in the case, to the effect that he had acquired the same out of the proceeds of crime. It is contended by the appellant/applicant that in fact no such statement was made by the appellant/applicant‟s son (now deceased) and the property in question is the personal property of the appellant/applicant.