TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... format and in the notice - there are no irregularity or illegality in the common notice issued under Section 8(4) of PMLA, 2002 to the appellants. It is in accordance with the provisions of Section 8(4) r/w relevant rules. Whether the appellants are entitled to any relief at this stage depends upon, whether the appellants have prima facie case for the purpose of stay, whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting stay, whether there will be irreparable injury which can t be compensated in terms of money if stay is not granted. The respondent could not produce any independent document rebutting the documents of appellants with regards to non-residing of Dr. Yawar Zahoor Watali, s/o the appellants in the given address ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MP-PMLA-6388/DLI/2019 (Stay) MP-PMLA-6444/DLI/2019 (Stay) Heard both sides on the point of staying the operation of impugned order and the common notice issued under Section 8(4) of PMLA, 2002. Alongwith the appeals, the appellants have filed applications for staying the operation of impugned order dated 26.08.2019. The appellants have also been served with a common notice under Section 8(4) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (hereinafter referred to as PMLA ), 2002 dated 03.09.2019 ordering the inmates presently staying in/occupying bearing basement and ground floor of L-25/4, DLF Phase-II Gurugram, Haryana in the name of appellant Mrs. Sarwa Zahoor to vacate the premises within 10 days from the date of service of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rescribed format. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent that Sri Watali, has purchased the property in question in the name of his wife Mrs. Sarwa Zahoor. He has paid the consideration amount. Since the payment has come from him, even though the property is in the name of Mrs. Sarwa Zahoor, so the property has been attached as a value equivalent to proceeds of crime. Therefore, the appellants don t have a prima facie case for stay. It is further pleaded by the learned counsel for the respondent that the son or his family is not residing in the property. It was submitted that, as none was found in the property so notice under Section 8(4) was affixed on the property. The learned counsel for the respondent has file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tedly there are two floors which are owned by the appellant Mrs. Sarwa Zahoor. The appellants contended that their son Dr. Yawar Zahoor Watali, who is a medical practitioner, is residing in the attached property. The appellant Mrs. Sarwa Zahoor has filed copies of documents, such as electricity bills, Green Power Resident energy consumption details, mobile bills, Aadhar Card, Identity Cards issued by Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi and Aakash Healthcare Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi, in support of her contention that her son, who is medical practitioner, is staying at the same address. Undisputedly the property in question has been attached as value equivalent to part of the alleged proceeds of crime. The property in question is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the floor rented out to the tenant in the questioned property is concerned, the appellant Mrs. Sarwa Zahoor is enjoying financial benefit out of it to the tune of ₹ 10,000/- p.m. The appellants could not make out a case of irreparable injury, in respect of the ground floor which is rented out, which can t be compensated in terms of money. In the light of aforesaid discussion, balance of convenience lies in passing the following orders in following terms: 1. Status quo shall be maintained by both parties as on today with respect of the floor occupied by the son his family of the appellants. No coercive action shall be taken in view of notice issued under Section 8(4) of PMLA, 2002 with respect to the first floor ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... achment of property in question shall continue. In view of Judgement of Hon ble High Court, Madras in the matter of A. Kamarunnisa Ghori Ors. Versus Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement the legal and constructive possession of the property in question would lie with respondent no.1 till further order/the next date of hearing. Subject to above, no coercive action shall be taken in view of the common notice dated 03.09.2019 issued under Section 8(4) of PMLA, 2002 till the next date of hearing. 6. The respondent is given liberty to make necessary enquiry regarding the market rent of the said property which has been rented out to Mr. Saleem Abdullah Bhatt and if required may file an appropriate application for enhancement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
