Loading..
Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)
Acts
  • Rule 5(3) of the Prevention of 8
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)
Acts
  • Rule 5(3) of the Prevention of 8
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Appellate Tribunal, Prevention of Money Laundering Act — Summary of Opinion (21 January 2020)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns multiple connected proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (PMLA), culminating in the Tribunal's order dated 21.01.2020. The Enforcement Directorate (ED), as petitioner/respondent before the Tribunal, filed a miscellaneous petition on 13.11.2017 under Section 35(2)(f) of the PMLA to review the Tribunal's interim order dated 19.06.2017. The interim order had required appellants to deposit Rs.15,000 per month as user charges for each of five attached properties and had stayed coercive action in view of a notice issued under Section 8(4) of the PMLA.

The review application by the ED related specifically to two residential flats in DLF Commander's Court, Egmore, Chennai: Flat No. CCE-151 (claimed to be let at Rs.55,000 per month) and Flat No. CCE-141 (claimed to be let at Rs.65,000 per month). The ED filed rental agreements and asserted that the interim arrangement should be modified to reflect the actual rents and security deposits. The appellants filed replies and affidavits (including unregistered rent agreements dated 01.11.2016 and 01.04.2017) admitting the rents and security deposits but also made factual claims (e.g., tenant vacated, security deposit adjusted, family shifted in) for which the Tribunal found inadequate proof.

Procedurally, the Tribunal had earlier granted liberty to the ED to verify property positions and to move for modification of the interim order (orders dated 19.06.2017 and 03.11.2017). Rent agreements and affidavits in respect of the two properties were filed on 24.07.2017 and 25.07.2017. The Tribunal heard both sides and issued the present order modifying the interim order in specified terms.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the review application under Section 35(2)(f) of the PMLA should result in modification of the interim order dated 19.06.2017 so as to require deposit of user/occupation charges equal to the actual rents received for two specified residential flats (Rs.55,000 and Rs.65,000 per month respectively).
  2. Whether, in light of admissions in affidavits and production of rent agreements, the Tribunal should direct recovery of arrears of user charges from the date of confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order, subject to deduction of amounts already deposited under the interim order.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner / Enforcement Directorate (Respondent in appeals)

  • Filed a review application under Section 35(2)(f) seeking modification of the interim order to reflect the actual rental receipts and security deposits for two properties (reproduced from Para 10 of the review application in the record).
  • Contended that the interim order had mistakenly identified which properties were let and provided the Tribunal with copies of rent agreements showing monthly rents of Rs.55,000 and Rs.65,000 and security deposits of Rs.3,00,000 each for the two properties.

Appellants / Non-petitioners

  • Admitted, through affidavits and the unregistered rent agreements, that two properties were let and that rents of Rs.55,000 and Rs.65,000 per month (with Rs.3,00,000 security deposits) were received.
  • Submitted that they were paying substantial monthly EMIs to banks (figures stated in pleadings: e.g., Rs.2,52,269 and Rs.2,39,594 per month) and requested exemption from paying the difference between the rent received and the amount earlier fixed by the Tribunal because of those EMIs and because properties were attached by the ED.
  • In respect of the property let at Rs.65,000, the appellants asserted that the tenant had vacated and that the security deposit was adjusted against last months' rent, and later claimed that the appellant's daughter had shifted into the property; however, the Tribunal found that dates and documentary proof for these claims were not provided.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal's reasoning follows the sequence of the interim order, the review petition, subsequent filings and admissions:

  1. Background of interim order: The Tribunal recalled that on 19.06.2017 it had passed an interim order directing deposit of Rs.15,000 per month as user charges for each of five properties and had permitted the ED to verify the position of the properties and seek modification of that interim order (paras 6, 8 and 11 of the opinion).
  2. Opportunity to produce evidence: The Tribunal noted that it had given liberty (also reiterated on 03.11.2017) for the parties to place rent deeds/lease deeds on record and for the ED to move for modification, and that the appellants filed affidavits and unregistered rent agreements in July 2017 (paras 6–7, 62–63).
  3. Admission of rents and security deposits: On review of the record, the Tribunal observed there were clear admissions (by affidavit and by rent agreements) that the two properties were let at Rs.55,000 and Rs.65,000 per month, and that Rs.3,00,000 security deposits had been taken in each case. The Tribunal treated those figures as the rental value of the properties (paras 9, 63).
  4. Discrepancy in earlier pleadings: The Tribunal emphasized that neither the stay applications nor the appeal memos had specifically mentioned that these particular flats were let to the named tenants; earlier statements before the Tribunal had identified different serial numbers as let-out properties (para 8). The ED's review application corrected and supplied the specific rent agreements for the two flats.
  5. Inadequacy of appellants' further claims: The appellants later filed contentions (e.g., tenant vacated, security deposit applied, daughter shifted in) but did not provide dates, documentary proof of vacation, or proof of the daughter's posting and shift. The Tribunal found these assertions unsupported on record (para 10, 67).
  6. Absence of loan/mortgage documentation: Although appellants mentioned EMIs and alleged acquisition with bank loans (HDFC loan figures and monthly EMI amounts were placed on record), the Tribunal noted that no documents were produced showing loans secured by mortgage over the two specific properties; accordingly, any claim for exemption on account of EMIs was not accepted as a ground to reduce the user charges (para 13).
  7. Interim-relief and modification: Given the ED's verification and the appellants' admissions, the Tribunal concluded that the interim order should be modified “without prejudice” to reflect the admitted rental values for the two properties. Directions were then articulated for deposit of higher user/occupation charges, payment of arrears within a fixed period and the timeline for future deposits (paras 14–17).
  8. Preservation of protection from coercive action: The Tribunal maintained the protection against coercive action under the earlier notice (Section 8(4) of PMLA) subject to compliance with the modified deposit directions (para 17).

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The Tribunal allowed the review application by the Enforcement Directorate and modified the interim order dated 19.06.2017 in specified terms.

Direct orders given by the Tribunal (as reflected in the opinion):

  • For Flat No. CCE-151 (owned by Mr. S. Shankarnarayanan): the appellant is directed to deposit Rs.55,000 per month with the respondent (ED) with effect from the date of confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order, after deducting amounts already paid under the interim order. The appellant was given eight weeks' time to pay arrears from the date of confirmation of the attachment order till 31.12.2019. Current and future rents must be deposited before the 7th of the next month (paras 14–15, 74–75).
  • For Flat No. CCE-141 (owned by Smt. Poonguzhali): the appellant is directed to deposit Rs.65,000 per month with the respondent (ED) with effect from the date of confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order as user and occupation charges, after deducting amounts already paid under the interim order. Smt. Poonguzhali was allowed eight weeks to pay arrears from the date of confirmation of the attachment order. Current and future rents must be deposited before the 7th of the next month (paras 15–16, 76–78).
  • Subject to compliance with the above directions, the respondent (ED) shall not take coercive action in view of the notice issued on 09.06.2017 under Section 8(4) of the PMLA, 2002 (para 17).
  • The application filed by the petitioner/respondent is allowed and the interim order dated 19.06.2017 is modified accordingly; the order remains in force until further order (para 18).

Implications: The immediate consequence is an increase in the monthly user/occupation charges payable by the two named appellants to reflect admitted rental values. The order requires payment of arrears and future deposits on the specified schedule and preserves the restraint on coercive action so long as these directions are followed. The opinion does not state that it establishes any new legal precedent beyond the modification of the interim order in these proceedings.

Case listing information: the connected appeals (FPA-PMLA-1813 to 1817/CHN/2017) were listed for further hearing on 29 July 2020; a copy of the order was directed to be given "dasti" to both parties. (Order signed by G.C. Mishra, Acting Chairman, New Delhi, 21 January 2020.)

Show full summary ...

    Smt. Poonguzhali v. The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

    APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT

    AT NEW DELHI

    Date of Decision : 21.01.2020

    1. MP-PMLA-3996/CHN/2017 (Misc.) MP-PMLA-3545/CHN/2017 (Stay) MP-PMLA-3546/CHN/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1813/CHN/2017

    M/s. Sri Aiswariya Rock Exports … Appellant Versus

    The Deputy Director

    Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent

    2. MP-PMLA-3548/CHN/2017 (Stay) MP-PMLA-3549/CHN/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1814/CHN/2017

    Shri S. Sankaranarayanan … Appellant Versus

    The Deputy Director

    Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent

    3. MP-PMLA-3551/CHN/2017 (Stay) MP-PMLA-3552/CHN/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1815/CHN/2017

    Smt. S. Madhvi Selva Nachiar … Appellant Versus

    The Deputy Director

    Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent

    Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

    For the Appellants : Mr. Naveen Malhotra, Advocate Mr. Nilansh Malhotra, Advocate

    For the Respondent (ED) : Mrs. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam, Advocate

    4. MP-PMLA-3554/CHN/2017 (Stay) MP-PMLA-3556/CHN/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1816/CHN/2017

    Shri P.K.M. Selvam … Appellant Versus

    The Deputy Director

    Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent

    1

    5. MP-PMLA-3557/CHN/2017 (Stay) MP-PMLA-3558/CHN/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1817/CHN/2017

    Smt. Poonguzhali … Appellant Versus

    The Deputy Director

    Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent

    Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

    For the Appellants : Mr. Nitin Saravanan, Advocate Ms. Arunima singh, Advocate

    For the Respondent (ED) : Mrs. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam, Advocate

    CORAM

    SHRI G.C. MISHRA : ACTING MEMBER

    JUDGMENT

    In MP-PMLA-3996/CHN/2017 (Misc.)

    The Enforcement Directorate, Respondent/Petitioner has filed a miscellaneous petition on 13.11.2017 under Section 35(2)(f) of PMLA, 2002 to review the decision dated 19.06.2017 with regards to the decision on the payment of deposit of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) per month per property in respect of properties let out on rent and directed the appellants/non-petitioners to pay Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand only) monthly rent against first rented out property i.e., "Residential Flat viz., Flat No.CCE-151, DLF Commanders Court, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai 600 008", and to pay Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand only) against second rented out property i.e.,

    "Residential Flat viz., Flat No.CCE-141, DLF Commanders Court, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai 600 008" as user charges for the above mentioned properties each month with effect from 09.06.2017 and also to deposit

    2

    one time security collected by them from their tenants i.e., Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only) against each property.

    2. The relief has been sought by the petitioner/respondent is mainly on the ground mentioned in Para no.10 of the said review application which is reproduced below:

    "10. As per the interim order, the counsels for the respondents have stated that property Nos. 1 & 4 are let out and properties Nos. 2, 3 & 4 are self-occupied. The Respondent No.1 herein filed a letter dated 01.07.2017 before the Petitioner herein stating that the mentioning of property no.1 as let out on rent is a mistake and that the said property is not actually let out on rent and is self- occupied during his visits to Chennai. He further stated that Sl. No. 2 which has been mentioned before the Tribunal as self-occupied is actually let out on rent. The Respondent enclosed the rental agreement in respect of property No. 2 which on perusal is seen that the said property has been let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 55,000/- to Mrs. V.Yamini of Chennai. It is also noticed that Respondent-1 had received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as security deposit for letting out the said property. The respondent-1 also enclosed copy of the rental agreement in respect of property at Sl. No. 4 above which evidences letting out the said property to M/s. Karthikeya Trading Pvt. Ltd. on a monthly rent of Rs.65,000/-. The security deposit received with regard to the said property is also Rs.3,00,000/-."

    3. In response to above application, the appellants/non-petitioners have submitted their replies filed on dated 01.05.2018 and affidavits filed on dated 11.10.2019. The portions which are common and relevant in the replies as well as affidavits are reproduced as below:

    "10. That the contents of para 10 is correct to this extent that property No.2 and 4 i.e. residential Flat no. 2 & 4 are let-out and rent is being received. The property and 1, 2 & 5 are self occupied regarding the property No.2 i.e. residential flat this Flat No. Residential Property CCE 151- DLF, Commander's Court, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai- 600008

    has been let out on rent of Rs.55,000/- per month and Security deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- has been received from tenant which is refundable.

    The above property was bough with financial assistance from

    HDFC Bank to the tune of Rs.2.25 Crores.It is submitted that the appellant are paying an equated monthly due to the bank to the tune of Rs.2,52,269/- per month.

    Rent Deposited with Paid EMI For

    Collected ED loan availed

    3

    Rs.55,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.2,52,269/- It is submitted that the appellant may be exempted from paying the difference of the rent received and the amount paid to the ED, as already we are paying a much bigger sum to HDFC Bank - Rs.2.52 Lacs / month as Home Loan EMI and the property is attached with ED.

    Regarding Residential Property CCE 141-DLF, Commander's Court, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai -600008.This property had been let out to M/s. Karthikeya Trading Pvt. Ltd. for a rental of Rs.65,000/- per month and refundable

    security deposit Rs.3,00,000/- was also received as per the agreement.

    Subsequently they have vacated the premises and their

    Security deposit was adjusted against their last 4 months rent. The property was vacated by the tenant on 31st

    January in the year 2018. The documentary proof is to this effect is being placed on record. No rent has been received in this property and is self occupied.Mr.P.K.M. Selvam's daughter is planning to shift over there with family as her husband is taking up a posting in Chennai.This property has been acquired with the help of a loan from

    HDFC for Rs.2.00 Crores and we are paying a monthly EMI of Rs.2.39 Lacs / month.

    Rent Collected previously Deposited with ED Paid EMI For loan availed
    Rs.65,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.2,39,594/-

    It is respectfully submitted that the appellant may be exempt

    from paying the difference of the rent received and the amount

    paid to the ED, as already we are paying a much bigger sum to

    HDFC Bank - Rs. 2.39 Lacs / month as Home Loan EMI and

    the property is attached with ED."

    4. The appellants/non-petitioners have filed copy of unregistered rental agreement dated 01.11.2016 executed between Mr. S. Shankarnarayanan and Mrs. V.Yamini W/o Mr. K. Vishnu in respect of Apartment No. CCE-151, (Fifteenth floor), E - Block, DLF Commander's Court No.49 (Old No.22), Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai 600 008 with built up area about 1706 sq. ft and 1 covered car parking spot (Parking Spot basement 2. No: PB-E-218).

    5. The appellants/non-petitioners have also filed copy of unregistered rental agreement dated 01.04.2017 executed between Mrs. S.Poonguzhali W/o Mr.P.K.M. Selvam and M/s. Karthikeya Trading Private Limited in

    4

    respect of Apartment No. CCE-141, (Fifteenth floor), E - Block, DLF Commander's Court No.49 (Old No.22), Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai 600 008 with built up area about 1706 sq. ft. and 1 covered car parking spot (Parking Spot No: PB-E-319).

    6. As it appears from the above the review application filed by the respondent/petitioner is with regards to only two properties as described above. It is seen from the interim order dated 19.06.2017 that after hearing both the parties an interim order was passed in which the appellants were asked to deposit Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) per month as user charges for each of the five properties mentioned in the order. Thereafter, the Tribunal went on to pass the direction that no coercive action shall be taken in view of the notice issued on 09.06.2017 under Section 8(4) of the PML Act. It was clearly mentioned in Para 9 of the said order dt.19.06.2017 that the aforesaid arrangement is purely interim and is subject to the verification regarding the rent, etc. In Para no.10 of the said order, the appellants/non-petitioners were directed to file the affidavit alongwith the copies of the rent deed/lease deed, if executed. In Para no.8 of the order dated 19.06.2017, liberty was granted to the petitioner/respondent to verify the position of the properties, rent, etc. and inform the correct position. The petitioner/respondent was also given liberty to file an affidavit in that regard.

    7. Vide order dated 03.11.2017, this Tribunal again directed the non- petitioners/appellants to file the copy of the rent deed/lease deed within two weeks and liberty was granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent to move for modification of the interim order. However, it is seen from the record that the affidavit sworn by the appellant Mr. S. Shankarnarayanan alongwith the copy of the rent

    5

    agreement dated 01.11.2016 and the affidavit sworn by the appellant Mr. P.K.M. Selvam alongwith the copy of the rent agreement dated 01.04.2017, were filed in the Tribunal on 24.07.2017 and 25.07.2017 respectively. The property of Mr. S. Shankarnarayanan has been rented out for a sum of Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand only) per month and a security deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only) was taken from the tenant. Whereas in the case of the property of Mrs. S.Poonguzhali W/of Mr. P.K.M. Selvam, the property was rented out for a sum of Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand only) per month and as security deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only) was taken from the tenant.

    8. It appears from the records that neither in the stay applications nor in the appeal memo there is any specific mention about the renting out of the aforesaid two properties to Mrs. V. Yamini and M/s. Karthikeya Trading Private Limited. Rather, it is mentioned in the order dated 19.06.2017 that the learned counsel for the appellants made statement that the properties at Serial No.1 & 5, have been rented out. As per the list of properties reflected in the said order, the properties at Serial No.1 & 5 are different from the aforesaid two properties.

    9. There is a clear admission by the appellants Mr. S. Shankarnarayanan and Mr. P.K.M. Selvam through their affidavits and their rent agreements that they were/have been getting Rs.55,000/- & Rs.65,000/- per month as rents from the said house properties. That means the rental value of the said properties are Rs.55,000/- & Rs.65,000/- per month.

    10. That after filing of the petition for review of the order dated 19.06.2017 by the petitioner/respondent, the non-petitioners/appellants

    6

    filed another affidavit on dated 01.05.2018 stating that the property which was rented out for Rs.65,000/- has been vacated by the tenant and the refundable security deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- was adjusted against the last four months rent. The date of vacation has not been mentioned nor has the period against which the security deposit has been adjusted been revealed. It has been stated in the affidavit filed on dated 11.10.2019 that the daughter of Mr. P.K.M. Selvam has shifted over there with family as her husband has taken up a posting in Chennai. No proof has been filed that the daughter of Mr. P.K.M. Selvam is staying in Apartment No. CCE-141, (Fifteenth floor), E - Block, DLF Commander's Court No.49 (Old No.22), Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant/non-petitioner submitted that her husband is an IAS Officer and has been transferred to Chennai. The details of the posting, date of shifting of family, etc. have not been provided.

    11. Heard both sides. Considered the materials available on record. On 19.06.2017, interim order was passed keeping in view the urgency of the matter in view of the notice issued under Section 8(4) of the PMLA. Liberty was granted to the petitioner/respondent to verify the position of the properties and may move for modification of the interim order. The appellants were also directed to file affidavit alongwith copies of the rent deed. As an interim measure the non-petitioners/appellants were directed to deposit Rs.15,000/- each month as user charges for each of the five properties mentioned in the order and the petitioner/respondent was directed not to take any coercive action in view of the notice dated 09.06.2017 issued under Section 8(4).

    12. The petitioner/respondent has filed the review application only with respect to two properties mentioned below:

    7

    (i) Residential Flat viz., Flat No.CCE-151, DLF Commanders Court, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai 600 008.

    (ii) Residential Flat viz., Flat No.CCE-141, DLF Commanders Court, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai 600 008.

    13. The first property is owned by Mr. S. Shankarnarayanan, the appellant in appeal no.FPA-PMLA-1814/CHN/2017 and is receiving a sum of Rs.55,000/- as rent per month from the tenant. Whereas, the second property is owned by Mrs. Poonguzhali, wife of Mr. P.K.M. Selvam the appellant in appeal no.FPA-PMLA-1817/CHN/2017 and was receiving a sum of Rs.65,000/- as rent per month from the tenant. The aforesaid two appellants executed the rent agreements on 01.11.2016 and 01.04.2017 respectively. Both the agreements were prior to passing of the interim order dated 19.06.2017 but they did not reveal the aforesaid facts of renting out the properties, execution of rent agreements, the amount of rent received and the parties to whom the properties have been rented out. I have considered the pleadings of both the parties including the EMI paid by the appellants. No documents have been produced by these two appellants regarding the borrowing of loans by mortgaging these two properties. The appellants to bear the cost of EMI, if any, to be paid to the concerned Banks from whom they stated to have borrowed the loans. No affidavits has been filed by Smt. Poonguzhali, who is the owner of the property at serial no.(ii) above in Para no12.

    14. Since, the liberty was granted to the petitioner/respondent on 19.06.2017 as well as on 03.11.2017 for filing of the modification of interim order, so the present application has been filed. The property at serial no.(i) in Para no.12 above have been rented out on the basis of unregistered rent agreement. As per Rule 5(3) of the Prevention of

    8

    Money-Laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013, without prejudice, the appellant Mr. S. Shankarnarayanan is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.55,000/- per month with the respondent w.e.f. the date of confirmation of Provisional Attachment Order after deducting the amount already paid in terms of the interim order dated 19.06.2017. The appellant Mr. S. Shankarnarayanan is allowed eight weeks time to pay the arrears from the date of confirmation order till 31.12.2019. The current and future rents shall be deposited by the appellant Mr. S. Shankarnarayanan before 7th

    of next month.

    15. The property at serial no.(ii) in Para no.12 above was rented out on the basis of unregistered rent agreement. Admittedly Mrs. Poonguzhali, appellant in appeal no.FPA-PMLA-1817/CHN/2017 is the owner of the aforesaid property. She had executed the unregistered rent agreement on 01.04.2017. According to the said agreement, she was getting Rs. 65,000/- as rent per month from the tenant. She has not filed any affidavit though an affidavit has been filed by another appellant namely Mr. P.K.M. Selvam, who is her husband and appellant in appeal no. FPA- PMLA-1816/CHN/2017 stating that the tenant has vacated the aforesaid property. The affidavit does not say as when the property has been vacated. The affidavit also does not reveal as to when the daughter of the appellant has shifted. No proof has been provided regarding the posting of the husband of the appellant's daughter at Chennai. However, it is clear from the pleadings of the non-petitioner/appellant that the rental value of the aforesaid property is Rs.65,000/- per month. This fact was not revealed by the appellants when the matter was heard by this Tribunal on 19.06.2017, even though the property at serial no.(ii) was given on rent w.e.f. 01.04.2017.

    9

    16. In the light of the admission of the rental value of the said property per month, without prejudice, the appellant Smt. Poonguzhali is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.65,000/- per month with the respondent w.e.f. the date of confirmation of Provisional Attachment Order as user and occupation charges after deducting the amount already paid in terms of the interim order dated 19.06.2017. The appellant Smt. Poonguzhali is allowed eight weeks time to pay the arrears from the date of confirmation order. The current and future rents shall be deposited by the appellant Smt. Poonguzhali before 7th

    of next month.

    17. Subject to above, the respondent shall not take any coercive action in view of the notice issued on 09.06.2017 under Section 8(4) of PMLA,

    2002.

    18. Accordingly the application filed by the petitioner/respondent is allowed and interim order dated 19.06.2017 is modified in the aforesaid terms. This order shall remain in force till further order.

    FPA-PMLA-1813-1817/CHN/2017

    List these appeals on the date already fixed for hearing i.e. on 29th July, 2020.

    Copy of the order be given 'dasti' to both the parties.

    (G. C. Mishra) Acting Chairman New Delhi,

    21st

    January, 2020

    'AS'

    10

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Smt. Poonguzhali v. The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai
    (Jan 21, 2020)