APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI

1. MP-PMLA-78/JP/2024 Exemp.

FPA-PMLA-29/JP/2024 Murlidhar Birla ... Appellant

2. MP-PMLA-80/JP/2024 Exemp.

FPA-PMLA-30/JP/2024 Anil Birla ... Appellant

3. MP-PMLA-119/JP/2024 Exemp.

FPA-PMLA-51/JP/2024 M/s Abhinav Gold International Marketing Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Jaipur … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Mr. Nitesh Bhandari, Adv.

Ms. Stuti Bisht, Adv. Mr. Amit Garg, Adv.

Ms. Maitreya, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Aditya Singla, Adv.

CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI G. C. MISHRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

25.09.2025 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 provisional attachment order.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submits that he needs not to press the appeal against the attachment of the property if possession of the property is not taken till conclusion of the trial. It is submitted that an order to maintain status quo may be passed by this Tribunal. It is for the reason that no exceptional reason for taking possession exists. The release of property may be kept subject to the outcome of the trial and as per Section 8(5) to 8(8) of the Act of 2002.

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, these appeals are disposed of.

(Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari)

Chairman (G. C. Mishra)

Member New Delhi, 25^th September, 2025 ‘J’