APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI FPA-PMLA-1997/HYD/2024 Shri N. Srinivasulu … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : S.D. Singh, Kamla Prasad, Advocates For the Respondent : Shri Abhimanyu Kaul, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

19.02.2026 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 dated 04.09.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed provisional attachment of the property.

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 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 existing today. The Appellant would not alienate or transfer the property till conclusion of the trial. Subject to the outcome of the trial, the Appellant 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.

If any of the property is on lease/ rent, or is given on lease/ rent in future, then it would be governed as per Prevention of Money-laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013. The amount of lease/ rent would be accounted to the ED and is to be kept in the FD to earn reasonable interest. The FD would remain subject to final outcome of the trial. The appellant would furnish an affidavit to the ED periodically in every three months to show status of the property whether it has been rented/ leased out or not. The ED would be at liberty to verify the veracity of the affidavit and if it is found to be incorrect, to make an application in the disposed of matter for an appropriate order.

7. The Respondents would however be at liberty to file an application in this disposed of Appeal to seek possession of the prope