Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + AT Money Laundering - 2017 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 964 - ATPMLAPMLA - attachment of property - taking custody of the vehicle - Held that:- Rule 7 of PMLA is very clear that the authorized officers of the respondent has to file the application before Spl. Court providing the order passed under section 5 & 8 (3) of the Act. In the present case the said procedure has not been followed by the respondent. No application for seeking the leave has been filed. No different interpretation can be given once the language of the Rule is clear. The respondent may be entitled to take the possession of the confirmed attachment property only if the leave of the court is granted who is having the custody of the vehicle. Therefore, if so required authorized officers has to make a application to such court by providing the copy of the Provisional Attachment Order and confirmation order by the Adjudicating Authority. Nothing of that sort has happened in the present case. In the present case, we are of the view that the custody taken by the respondent is unauthorized without following the procedure of Rule-7, even without informing the Court. The respondent, therefore, shall handover the possession of the vehicle to the appellant forthwith who shall not dispose of the said vehicle in any manner directly or indirectly during the pendency of the appeal. The respondent is at liberty to move such application as provided under sub rule 7 of PMLA before the Special Court. If such application is filed it would be decided accordingly.
|