Dr. Asha Kumari vs Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement, Patna

Sl. No.,"Registered Document No. &

date",Details of Property,Property acquired in the name of

1.,15457 dated 16/11/2005,"“RZ-685/ F-16, 122 Sq.Yds

(22’X50’), bearing Khata

No.64/3/1Village â€" Palam, Ra

Nagar â€" II, Palam Colony, New

Delhiâ€​",".Dr. Asha (D/o â€" Shri Dinke

Prasad Singh and W/o Brajes

jThakur)

Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently objected to the submissions made by the appellant’s counsel and granting of any interim relief. He,,,

inter-alia submitted that the appellant has siphoned of huge amount of money and that the property has been purchased from Proceeds of Crime and,,,

appellant cannot enjoy the property after confirmation of attachment order and that the ED has also filed Prosecution Complaint before the Ld.,,,

Special Judge, Patna, Bihar being Special PMLA Case No.06/2020 against the present appellant and others and that though the land has been",,,

acquired in the year 2005 but the construction of the building took place during the period 2007 to 2013-14 and that he has also referred to various,,,

paragraphs at Page no(s). 8, 9, 11 & 12 of the Original Complaint No.1338 of 2020 filed before the Adjudicating Authority where from it is submitted",,,

that funds to the tune of Rs.1,53,86,129/- have been transferred from the bank accounts of NGO namely ‘Sewa Sankalp Evam Vikas Samiti’ to",,,

the bank accounts of Brajesh Thakur (husband of the appellant) & his family members for acquisition of huge movable and immovable properties and,,,

that the building is not in occupation of the appellant and that there is no registered rent agreement so Rule 5(4) of the Prevention of Money-,,,

Laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013 is applicable and on the",,,

aforesaid grounds the respondent submitted that the appellant has failed to make out a case for grant of stay/interim order of status quo. However, he",,,

has sought four weeks time to file reply to the stay application, which is not objected.",,,

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. It is not disputed by the respondent that the appellant is working as a Professor in an,,,

University in Bihar and that the property has been purchased in the year 2005 whereas the alleged commission of offence is during the period 2012-13,,,

to 2017-18 and that it has come on record that the building was constructed during the period 2007 to 2013-14 and that the total proceeds of crime is,,,

Rs.7,57,48,820/- and that the ED has already attached properties worth Rs.7,30,57,794.67. It is also seen from the impugned order that only properties",,,

worth Rs.26,91,025.33 are remained to be attached. In the adjudication order the Adjudicating Authority has specifically observed at page 122 of the",,,

impugned order that “………..The present Provisional Attachment Order, which is apparently passed in excess over the alleged",,,

proceeds of crime, raises question about its sustainability. The Deputy Director has not assigned any reason as to why the proceeds of",,,

crime to the tune of Rs. 14716659 are required to be provisionally attached. The reasonable belief formed as to the attachment to the extent,,,

provisionally attached, gets impaired to the extent.â€​",,,

During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that that funds to the tune of Rs.1,53,86,129/- have been transferred",,,

from the bank accounts of NGO namely ‘Sewa Sankalp Evam Vikas Samiti’ to the bank accounts of Brajesh Thakur (husband of the appellant),,,

& his family members for acquisition of huge movable and immovable properties but he could not substantiate it today by way of any document,,,

showing transfer of the aforesaid amount to the account of the appellant.,,,

The building is occupied by five tenants who are staying with their families and that the appellant is getting Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/- rent from the",,,

tenants per month and in the pandemic situation it would be against interest of justice and inhumane to evict the tenants and their families from the,,,

building at this juncture. Further, after considering the submissions and perusal of the materials placed on record, I find that there is a prima facie case",,,

for grant of ad-interim order of ‘status quo’ with respect to the property in question.,,,

Both the parties are directed to maintain the ‘status quo’ as on today till the next date of hearing with respect to the property in question qua the,,,

appellant. The aforesaid order of ad-interim ‘status quo’ is granted subject to the following conditions:-,,,

i. The appellant is directed to deposit the total rent amount received from the tenants within 10th day of the next month with effect from the rent,,,

received for the month of February, 2021 in the form of Fixed Deposits (FD) and the FDR to be deposited with the respondent (Enforcement",,,

Directorate);,,,

ii. Attachments shall continue;,,,

iii. The appellant is prohibited to create any third party right, transfer, mortgage or otherwise dispose of the property in question in any manner;",,,

iv. The appellant shall not alter the nature and character of the property in question;,,,

v. The legal, constructive and symbolic possession of the property in question shall remain with the Enforcement Directorate;",,,

vi. No encumbrance shall be created by the appellant in respect of the property in question.,,,

It is clarified that in the event if the present tenants vacate the premises no fresh tenant should be inducted without the permission of this Tribunal. If,,,

any fresh tenant is inducted by the appellant then the Respondent is at liberty to move this Tribunal for appropriate order in accordance with law. It is,,,

further to clarify that whatever view has been taken and appreciated above is for the purpose of considering the interim/stay application only.,,,

In the event any of the above conditions is violated, the respondent will be at liberty to move this Tribunal for appropriate order in accordance with",,,

law.,,,

The learned counsel for the respondent sought four weeks time to file the reply to the stay application, which is not objected. Let the reply to the stay",,,

application be filed within four weeks with an advance copy to be served on the other side.,,,

With the consent of both the parties, list the stay application as well as the appeal on 25th May, 2021.",,,

Copy of the order be given ‘dasti’ to both the parties.,,,