Delhi High Court
M/S.B.A. Properties Pvt.Ltd. vs Joint Director, Enforcement ... on 24 May, 2016
Author: S. P. Garg
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 24th MAY, 2016
+ CRL.A.504/2016
M/S.B.A. PROPERTIES PVT.LTD. ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.R.K.Handoo, Advocate with
Mr.Arvind Mohan & Mr.Aditya
Chaudhary, Advocates.
Versus
JOINT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE,
LUCKNOW ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Amit Mahajan, CGSC with
Mr.Kunal Dutt, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.A.No.8589/2016 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.A.504/2016 & CRL.M.A.No.8588/2016 (Stay)
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant to
challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 11.05.2016 of the
learned Tribunal whereby status quo order dated 27.04.2016 was vacated.
2. Provisional Attachment Order No.03/2015 attaching the
property of the appellant was passed on 23.09.2015. Adjudicating Authority
confirmed the provisional attachment order on 24.02.2016. In the appeal
preferred before PMLA Tribunal, along with application for stay, vide order
dated 27.04.2016, status quo order was granted. Response to the application
for stay was filed by the respondent and it was informed that the appellant
had mentioned wrong facts in the stay application besides filing a wrong
affidavit intentionally. Prayer was made to vacate the status quo order dated
27.04.2016. Learned Tribunal by the impugned order vacated the status quo
order.
3. Order dated 11.05.2016 reveals that appellant's counsel
Mr.R.K.Handoo, Advocate accepted the mistake and informed that due to a
computer mistake / clerical error, portion of the stay application contained
certain facts not relevant to the case. He sought Tribunal's indulgence to
substitute / replace the stay application. The Tribunal was of the view that
factual averments contained in the stay application were not pertaining to the
subject-case. The appellant was given liberty to file rejoinder to the
response of the respondent. At the same time, the status quo granted vide
order dated 27.04.2016 was vacated. The matter was listed for 13 th July,
2016.
4. Apparently, the status quo order dated 27.04.2016 has not been
vacated on merits. It was only due to the fact that certain facts incorporated
in the stay application which were not relevant to the subject matter were
incorporated therein. The appellant has already been given liberty to file
rejoinder to the response filed by the respondent and the matter is listed on
13th July, 2016.
5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
respondent stated that he has no objection if the status quo order is revived.
He, however, urged to direct the appellant to move afresh stay application
before the Tribunal for disposal on merits. To this, learned counsel for the
appellant has no objection.
6. It is relevant to note that earlier similar relief was sought by the
appellant M/S Shivali Constructions Pvt.Ltd in Crl.A.No.482/2016 decided
on 18th May, 2016. Relief was granted to the said appellant. The appellant's
case is on same footing. In view of the above, the appellant shall file afresh
stay application within a week before the learned Tribunal. The response to
it shall be filed by the respondent within next one week. Stay application,
thereafter, shall be disposed of by the learned Tribunal on merits after
hearing both the parties. In the meantime, status quo order in terms of order
dated 27.04.2016 shall remain in operation till the disposal of the stay
application.
7. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending
application also stands disposed of.
8. Copy of the order be sent to the learned Tribunal for
information.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
MAY 24, 2016
sa
