Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (5.17 seconds)
Documents citing Seema Garg vs The Deputy Director on 6 March, 2020

M/S Prakash Industries Ltd. & Anr. vs Directorate Of Enforecement on 19 July, 2022

20. Therefore, in my view, the properties-in-question cannot be termed as ‗proceeds of crime‖. Hence, could not have been attached in exercise of power under Section 5 of the PMLA. Therefore, the act of provisional attachment of the properties of respondent No. 5 by respondent-authorities suffers from arbitrariness and in flagrant violation of mandate of Section 5 of the PML Act, 2002. A similar issue was there before a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Seema Garg v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 738. The Hon'ble High Court elaborately considered the issue and held as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 92 - Cited by 3 - Y Varma - Full Document

Sunlight Housing Development Private ... vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 23 August, 2021

33. Mr. Ponda, learned Senior Counsel would argue that the subject flats are untainted and clean property as it has been acquired in the year 2010 and, therefore, it cannot be attached by branding it as 'proceeds of crime'. To substantiate his point, reliance is placed upon a decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Seema Garg (supra) and Kumar Pappu Singh (supra) that "value of property" and "property equivalent" are different terms to be understood in different sphere. We accept the argument of Mr. Ponda albeit with a pinch of salt on the aspect that the subject flats are untainted and clean property. We shall discuss the case law shortly afterwards.
Bombay High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 2 - P K Chavan - Full Document

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union Of India on 27 July, 2022

(iv) In respect of Section 8, it is argued that the true meaning of the words “take possession” of property under Section 8(4) should be constructive possession instead of physical possession since it is highly prejudicial for the accused during the pendency of the trial. 147 For short, “1988 Act” 148 For short, “2018 Act” 149Abdullah Ali Balsharaf & Anr. vs. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors., 2019 SCC Online Del 6428; and Seema Garg vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2020 SCC Online P&H 738 150 Seema Garg (supra at Footnote No.149 above) 100 Reliance is placed on a decision that has been stayed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court which had originally held it to be symbolic possession instead of actual151. It is urged that Article 300A is not only a constitutional right but also a human right. Further, confiscation is only subject to conviction and such disposition in all practical sense, leads to a confiscation prior to such conviction. Further, since there is no compensation in case a person is eventually acquitted, this would be a disproportionate action. As such, the argument that one needs to be restrained from selling or creating encumbrance is valid, the dispossession is not.
Supreme Court of India Cites 580 - Cited by 293 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Aftabuddin Ahmed And Anr vs Enforcement Directorate And 2 Ors on 28 March, 2024

Page No.# 31/48 The judgments of both the Delhi High Court in the case of Axis Bank (supra) as well as Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Seema Garg (supra) which in the opinion of this Court would therefore neither help the Petitioners nor the Respondents in view of the categorical observations made by the Supreme Court in the above quoted paragraphs.
Gauhati High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - D Baruah - Full Document

Kumar Pappu Singh vs Union Of India on 20 March, 2021

23. The same provision came up for interpretation before a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Seema Garg v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement decided on 06.03.2020 in PMLA No.1, 2 & 3 of 2019 (O&M). These are appeals filed against the order of attachment, which had been affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. In these cases, the property had been purchased prior to the commission of the scheduled offence. The question that arose before the Court was whether such property could be brought within the definition of Section 2 (1)(u) and could be attached under Section 5 of the Act.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - R R Rao - Full Document

M/S M3M India Pvt Ltd And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 26 July, 2024

3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 27-07-2024 18:12:23 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:094891-DB CWP-17388-2024 (O&M) -4- ii. In the absence of separate 'material in his possession' and simultaneous 'recording of reason to believe in writing' justifying the invocation of the Second Proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act, the action taken to 'provisionally attach' a property would stand vitiated in law. D. In consonance with the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in "Seema Garg Vs. Dy. Director, DoE 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 738"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V Suri - Full Document
1   2 Next