Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2014 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 1126 - HC - Money LaunderingValidity of lease deed executed after the Provisional Attachment - Attachment orders - money-laundering prevention - Held that:- Adjudicating Authority has the power to issue a provisional attachment order so that during the pendency of the proceedings, the property is neither transferred nor disposed of or parted with or dealt with in any manner. Subsequently, if upon a complaint being filed by respondent No.1, the provisional attachment order is confirmed, then the authority has the power to take over possession. This Court is further of the view that after a provisional attachment order has been passed, no noticee-owner can create a tenancy or transfer possession or create third party rights to defeat an ultimate order of taking over possession under the Act, 2002 and Rules, 2013. It is pertinent to mention that the expression ‘attachment’ is defined under Section 2(d) of Act, 2002 to mean prohibition of transfer, conversion, disposition or movement of property by an order issued under Chapter III. Though in the present case, it has been averred that the tenancy had been orally created on 01st June, 2013, yet this Court is of the view that the alleged oral tenancy would create no right either in favour of the petitioner or respondent No.2 as the lease deed in question was compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.Further, the covenant in the lease deed that security deposit shall be paid not at the time of handing over of possession or at the time of registration throws doubt upon the genuineness of the oral tenancy and the handing over of possession in June, 2013. This Court also takes judicial notice of the fact that Prirthvi Raj Road is one of the most prime and posh areas of the city and it is inconceivable that a property ad measuring 6796.50 sq. ft. would have been leased out in an arms length transaction at ₹ 80,000/. Consequently, as the lease deed in question had been executed only after the Provisional Attachment order had been passed by the statutory authority, this Court is of the view Rule 5(3) of the Rules, 2013 would not enure to the benefit of either the petitioner or respondent No.2-tenant.
|