Bombay High Court
Sikkim Ferro Alloys Ltd vs Deputy Director Directorate Of ... on 5 January, 2021
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, Abhay Ahuja
15_WPST94114_20.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Balaji G. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Panchal
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.94114 OF 2020
Digitally signed by
Balaji G. Panchal
Date: 2021.01.06
14:46:22 +0530 Sikkim Ferro Alloys Limited ... Petitioner
Vs.
Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai ... Respondent
Mr. Yogesh Naidu a/w. Sajal Yadav, Ruchita Sankhe and Mr. Mitul Shah
i/b. Shalabh K. Saxena for Petitioner.
Mr. H. S. Venegaonkar for Respondent.
CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN &
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 05, 2021
P.C. :
Heard Mr. Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Venegaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed legality and validity of the interim order dated 25.09.2020 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Prevention of Money Laundering Act at New Delhi in Appeal Nos.MP-PMLA-7691/Mum /2020 and FPA-PMLA-3757/Mum/2020. In addition to that, petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent not to evict it from its property.
3. Respondent has filed affidavit opposing the prayer made.
4. Relevant portion of the order dated 25.09.2020 reads as under:-
" Heard both sides. The appellants in appeal no.1 have filed certain charts along with copies of electricity bills, telephone bills and maintenance charges bills to show that they are in possession of the properties. On perusal of the said charts it is revealed that most of the properties are mortgaged with consortium of banks and other banks and that the loans advances by M/s. PAL owned by Late Amitabh Parekh to these Kamlesh Kanungo Group of Companies are without 1/3 15_WPST94114_20.doc documentation and major part of the loans of Rs.548.50 crores are yet to be repaid and that it is stated in the charts that almost all the mortgaged properties have been shown as used either by company's associates or by the employees or as guesthouses and that the appellants have failed to produce the details of the possession and that the aforesaid statement of using the mortgage properties by company's associate or by employees or as guesthouses are insufficient to inspire this Tribunal to prove that the appellants in appeal no.1 have a prima facie case and that the appellants have also failed to prove a case of irreparable injury and that balance of convenience lies in their favour so far as the mortgaged properties are concerned. Therefore, no relief can be granted at this stage to the appellants in appeal no.1 so far as mortgaged properties are concerned. However, the aforesaid two properties in which the appellants Mr. Kamlesh Kanungo and Smt. Dimple Kanungo are staying with their family members are concerned, the order of status quo is granted subject to use and occupation charges of Rs.50,000/- per month for each flat to be paid to the Enforcement Directorate from the date of impugned order i.e. 19.02.2020. The occupation charges of Rs.50,000/- per flat per month is subject to physical verification of market rental value by the respondent through a Government Approved Valuer within eight weeks. The respondent shall produce the copy of the Valuation Report by the next date with advance copy to the other side. The arrears of occupation charges are to be paid by the appellants in appeal no.1 within eight weeks from today. The current use and occupation charges w.e.f. September, 2020 till further orders shall be deposited by the appellants by the 7 th day of the next month. The use and occupation charges fixed above are subject to modification after receipt of valuation report and its consideration. This order is subject to the right of the consortium of banks and the State Bank of India under PMLA, 2002 and other laws.
The aforesaid interim order of 'status quo' granted is also subject to the following conditions:-
i. Attachments shall continue.
ii. The legal and constructive possession of the properties in question shall remain with the Enforcement Directorate;
iii. The appellants are prohibited to create any third party right or dispose of the properties in question in any manner;
iv. No encumbrance shall be created by the appellants in respect of the properties in question.
Respondent is granted six weeks time to file the reply to the stay application with an advance copy to the other side.2/3
15_WPST94114_20.doc List these matters on 18th January, 2021."
5. From the above, we find that the appeals are stated for hearing on 18.01.2021 along with a status quo order subject to the conditions mentioned therein.
6. In our order dated 27.10.2020, we had recorded the submission of Mr. Venegaonkar on instructions that respondent would have no objection if the bar on creation of third party rights is extended to the respondent as well.
7. After hearing the matter at some length, we are not inclined to interfere with an ongoing appellate proceeding before the Tribunal more so when further hearing is fixed on 18.01.2021. The order impugned is an interim one. While keeping all contentions open, we request the Tribunal to expedite hearing of the appeals with the status quo order modified to the above extent.
8. Writ petition is disposed of.
9. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.)
Minal Parab
3/3