The Delhi High Court has quashed the eviction order of the co-owner of the joint property as the appeal was pending and the order was contrary to the rule 5(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering rules 2013 (PMLA rules).
The Petitioner- Sanjay Jain filed a petition challenging the notice by the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate which sought eviction of the present owner and the occupants of the other property to which petitioner was the co-owner. The notice was issued in consequence of a provisional attachment order of the properties of Pankaj Jain who was the brother of the petitioner. The Petitioner was 50% owner of all the properties mentioned in the attachment order. An appeal filed by Pankaj Jain against the attachment order was already pending before the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (‘PMLA’) Appellate Tribunal.
Aggarwal, who appeared for the Petitioner, contended that the Petitioner was 50% owner of all the properties and the petitioner and occupants could not be evicted by such notice. He also contended that the eviction was contrary to the Rule 5(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Rules, 2013(‘PMLA’).
Zoheb Hosain, who appeared for the revenue, submitted that Pankaj Jain had absconded the place and was not responding to the warrant and as Pankaj Jain and Sanjay Jain were brothers the notice was only issued to take the lease from the occupants and share of Pankaj Jain.
The Delhi Bench of justice Prabhitha Singh held that the notice served to petitioner was contrary to Rule 5(3) and Rule 5 (5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Rules 2013 Rules (‘PMLA rules’) and Petitioner’s family and occupants of the premises could not be dispossessed or evicted until the Appellate Tribunal had heard and passed the orders in respect of the impugned notices or the appeal filed by Pankaj Jain.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
