##PAGE1##

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI

1. MP-PMLA-9513/JL/2022 (Stay) MP-PMLA-9514/JL/2022 (Exemp.)

FPA-PMLA-4666/JL/2022

Sunita Seth … Appellant

2. MP-PMLA-12042/JL/2023 (Exem.)

MP-PMLA-12041/JL/2023 (Stay)

FPA-PMLA-6004/JL/2023

Suraj Seth … Appellant

3. MP-PMLA-12044/JL/2023 (Exem.)

MP-PMLA-12043/JL/2023 (Stay)

FPA-PMLA-6005/JL/2023

Vikram Seth … Appellant

4. MP-PMLA-12046/JL/2023 (Exem.)

MP-PMLA-12045/JL/2023 (Stay)

FPA-PMLA-6006/JL/2023

Shivam Seth … Appellant

5. MP-PMLA-12048/JL/2023 (Exem.)

MP-PMLA-12047/JL/2023 (Stay)

FPA-PMLA-6007/JL/2023

Veena Handa … Appellant

6. MP-PMLA-12234/JL/2023 (Exem.)

MP-PMLA-12233/JL/2023 (Stay)

FPA-PMLA-6118/JL/2023

B. L. Seth Steels Ltd. … Appellant

7. MP-PMLA-12236/JL/2023 (Exem.)

MP-PMLA-12235/JL/2023 (Stay)

FPA-PMLA-6119/JL/2023

U R Enterprises … Appellant

8. MP-PMLA-9300/JL/2022 (Stay)

FPA-PMLA-4539/JL/2022

Sh. Suresh Seth … Appellant

9. MP-PMLA-9512/JL/2022 (Stay)

FPA-PMLA-4665/JL/2022

Rakesh Kumar Bhanot … Appellant Versus

The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar … Respondent

FPA-PMLA-4666,4539,4665/JL/2022 FPA-PMLA-6004-6007,6118,6119/JL/2023 Page 1 of 4

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellants : Mr. Sardavinder Goyal, Advocate

(for Sr. no. 1-7,9)

&

Mr. Dharam B. Bhargav, Advocate (for Sr. no. 8)

For the Respondent : Mr. Chandra Prakash Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Advocates

CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN

FINAL ORDER

23.03.2026

The Appeals have been preferred under Section 26 of the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short ‘the Act of 2002’) against the order dated 28.12.2021 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 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.

FPA-PMLA-4666,4539,4665/JL/2022 FPA-PMLA-6004-6007,6118,6119/JL/2023 Page 2 of 4

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 would be entitled for an order under Section