TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de as a party as it was the lessor of the property over which the defendants no(s) 1 to 3 has rights as lessee and the ED has got no objection if the order of the Adjudicating Authority is modified in relation to the contention of the appellant. On perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the Impugned Order has not disclosed as to how the present appellant is a party to the alleged commission of crime or has the possession of proceeds of crime or generated the proceeds of crime and laundered them even remotely. The implication of the present appellant along with other defendants by the Adjudicating Authority is neither proper nor legal. Appeal disposed off. - MP-PMLA-5991/LKW/2019 (Exem.), MP-PMLA-5992/LKW/2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the appellant that there is nothing on record to show that they have committed the scheduled offences. The only facts mentioned against the appellant is that they are the lessor of the property over which the other defendants i.e. defendant no(s). 1 to 3 before the Adjudicating Authority and arrayed as respondent no(s). 2 to 4 in the present appeal are lessees. 6. It is the contention of the appellant that it has no concern or connection with the alleged commission of offences by the respondent no(s). 2 to 4. On the basis of the contention raised in the memo of appeal, the appellant has prayed to quash/set-aside/modify the impugned order dated 07.03.2019 in favour of the appellant. 7. The Enforcement Directorate (ED has filed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no(s) 1 to 3 has rights as lessee and the ED has got no objection if the order of the Adjudicating Authority is modified in relation to the contention of the appellant. 10. During the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has no other grievance except the modification of the observation made by the Adjudicating Authority as reflected above. 11. On perusal of the concluding para of the impugned order it is seen that the Adjudicating Authority has made the observation which is reproduced below: 17. It is accordingly held that the property which has been attached under Section 5 is involved in Money Laundering. The Defendants are in possession of Proceeds of Crime within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y be and become final after an order of confiscation is passed under sub-section (5) to sub-section (7) of section 8 or section 58B or sub-section 2A of section 60. 12. On perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the Impugned Order has not disclosed as to how the present appellant is a party to the alleged commission of crime or has the possession of proceeds of crime or generated the proceeds of crime and laundered them even remotely. The implication of the present appellant along with other defendants by the Adjudicating Authority is neither proper nor legal. 13. In view of the contentions raised by the appellant and the respondent no.1 and after going through the materials on record, the impugned order is mod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
