APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI Shri Suresh Kumar Kalani

2.MP-PMLA-8401/JP/2021 Stay FPA-PMLA-3957/JP/2021 Shri Shmbhu Lal Gupta

3.MP-PMLA-8403/JP/2021 Stay FPA-PMLA-3958/JP/2021 Shri Rahul Gupta

4.MP-PMLA-8405/JP/2021 Stay FPA-PMLA-3959/JP/2021 Shri Kailash khandelwal

5.MP-PMLA-8407/JP/2021 Stay FPA-PMLA-3960/JP/2021 Shri Vipul Gupta

6.MP-PMLA-8409/JP/2021 Stay FPA-PMLA-3961/JP/2021 Govind Mahima Real Mart … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Jaipur … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Goyal, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. N.K. Matta, SPP CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

20.08.2025 The Appeal has been preferred under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short ‘the Act of 2002’) against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the provisional attachment order.

2. The learned counsel for the Appellant, on instructions, submits that if the possession of the property in pursuance to the Provisional Allotment Letter is not disturbed till the conclusion of the trial, rather, an order is passed to maintain status quo of the possession, the Appellant is not required to press the appeal against the Provisional Attachment of the property. The possession may not be taken unless an exceptional reason is shown and release of property may then be kept subject to final outcome of the trial.

3. The learned counsel for the Respondents submits that if the attachment of the property and its confirmation are not questioned rather Appellant is not pressing the Appeal to question those orders, and would be satisfied only if the possession is not taken, this Tribunal may pass an appropriate order on possession but property would be neither alienated nor transferred during the pendency of the trial in the criminal case.

4. We have heard the counsel for the parties. The Appeal has been preferred to challenge the provisional attachment order and its confirmation by the impugned order. The counsel for the Appellant, on instructions, submits that his client is not inclined to press the Appeal for challenge to the impugned orders if the possession of the property is not taken. A reference to the similar orders passed by the Tribunal has been given and accordingly prayer is made that subject to the outcome of the trial in pursuance to ECIR, the attached property may be dealt with under Section 8(5) to 8(8) of the Act of

2002.

5. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2022) SCC Online 929, the possession can be taken if exceptional reason exists. Accordingly, the Appeal is disposed of without causing interference in the provisional attachment order so as the order of its confirmation. The parties would, however, maintain status-quo in regard to the possession as is obtaining today. The Appellant would not alienate or transfer the property till conclusion of the trial. Subject to the outcome of the trial, the Appellant would be entitled for an order under Section 8(5) to 8(8) of the Act of 2002 if a case is made out and accepted by the Special Court.

6. It is made clear that this order would not be taken adverse to the Appellant and any observation in the impugned orders would not be binding on the trial rather it would pass the order independently and based on the evidence led before it.

7. The Respondent would be at liberty for seeking possession if exceptional circumstance is made out.

With the aforesaid, this Appeals are disposed of.

(Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari)

Chairman (G.C. Mishra)

Member New Delhi, 20^th August, 2025 ‘AP’