Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + AT Money Laundering - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 1256 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHIOffence under PMLA - attachment orders - joint appeal preferred by twenty appellants - Held that:- During the course of arguments in the present appeal, learned counsel for appellants submitted that though the respondent has alleged that the subject properties have been acquired by the accused out of proceeds of crime in the names of appellants but this allegation of the respondent is being contested on the ground that subject properties are independently acquired properties of the appellants from their legitimate sources. This goes on to show that each of the appellants will have separate arguments regarding source of acquisition of the subject properties. Here all the 20 appellants are independent persons. They cannot file a joint appeal. In a combined appeal, a declaration, plea/contention by one appellant will not be binding on other appellant(s). Each of the appellant is aggrieved only of his/her property attached and not for property attached of other appellant(s). In other words as each appellant is independently aggrieved, therefore the aggrieved appellants has to file separate appeals with appropriate copies. A perusal of appeal reveals that though appeal has been filed jointly by 20 appellants but only one appeal fee has been filed and it is not the plea of the appellants that though joint appeal has been filed by twenty appellants but twenty appeal fees has been paid for twenty appellants and for the purpose of pursuing appeal on behalf of twenty appellants, joint appeal may be allowed to be pursued. It is also not the plea of the appellants that all the subject properties whose attachment is contested are jointly owned by all the twenty appellants and they should be treated jointly as one appellant. Thus joint appeal preferred by twenty appellants would not be maintainable. Consequently, the plea of the appellants is liable to be rejected.
|