1. The matter is taken up through video conferencing. The appearances of the learned counsels are as above.

MP-PMLA-8114/MUM/2021 (U.H.) in FPA-PMLA-3878/MUM/2021

2. The urgent hearing application has been filed by the appellant on the grounds mentioned therein. The same is considered and allowed. Accordingly, the application of early hearing is disposed of.

FPA-PMLA-3878/MUM/2021

3. Fresh appeal has been filed under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the order dated 01.01.2021 in O.C. No. 1329 of 2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority.

4. Upon hearing, issue notice. Mr. Atul Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 accepts the notice. He seeks six weeks time to file the reply, which is not opposed. Let the same be filed within six weeks with an advance copy to be served on the other side. The learned counsel for the appellant has sought three weeks time to file the rejoinder, if any, which is not opposed. Let the rejoinder be filed within three weeks from the date of receipt of the reply to the appeal.

MP-PMLA-8116/MUM/2021 (Misc.) in FPA-PMLA-3878/MUM/2021

5. Alongwith appeal, an application for directing the Registry of the Adjudicating Authority to produce the official record of O.C. No. 1329/2020 has been filed. Upon hearing, issue notice. Both the parties accepts the notice who seeks time to file reply to the application within six weeks with an advance copy to the other side.

MP-PMLA-8115/MUM/2021 (Stay) in FPA-PMLA-3878/MUM/2021

6. Alongwith appeal, an application under Section 35 of the PMLA has been filed seeking ex parte ad interim stay of the impugned order dated 01.01.2021 and an order of status quo and/or an order directing the respondent No. 1 that no coercive steps be taken pursuant to the notice dated 07.01.2021 issued by the respondent No. 1 on the ground that eviction notice bearing F. No. ECIR/MBZO-1/04/2020/PVP under Section 8(4) of PMLA, 2002, in appeal No. FPA-PMLA-3878/MUM/2021 in respect to the following property:

"an area of 1.2 acres approx. at 40, Amrita Shergil Marg, Lutyens, New Delhi."

7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been served with eviction notice dated 07.01.2021 under Section 8(4) of the PMLA, 2002 directing this appellant to vacate and handover the peaceful possession of the aforesaid premises within ten days. The appellant had moved Hon'ble High Court, Delhi seeking reliefs, inter alia, such as quashing of the impugned order dated 01.01.2021 and for quashing/setting aside/staying the impugned notice dated 07.01.2021 vide Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) 301/2021 & CM APPLs. 774/2021, 775/2021. The Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 11.01.2021 disposed of the writ petition with a direction granting twenty days time to the petitioner to avail of its appellate remedies and with further direction that physical possession of the immoveable property shall not be taken for a period of twenty days.

8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is gross non-application of judicial mind by the Adjudicating Authority without considering the contentions raised by the appellant and that the proceedings in the O.C. were conducted in a highly irregular manner and that the property has been purchased by the appellant after taking loan from India bulls Housing Finance Limited (IBHFL) and that it is under self-occupation of the appellant and that it is mortgaged with IBHFL and that the title deeds of the property are also in the possession of IBHFL and as such the appellant has no ability in law or in fact, to transfer, dissipate, conceal or otherwise deal with the property.

9. On the aforesaid grounds, the appellant is seeking the order of status quo of the property mentioned above.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 raised strong objection for the grant of stay/status quo of the impugned order/eviction notice respectively. It is submitted by him that the property is also mortgaged with IDBI and that the property is lying vacant and the respondent will file appropriate reply to the application within six weeks.

11. Heard both sides. It is an admitted fact that the property in question is purchased and in possession of the appellant even though lying vacant. It is also an admitted fact that the property is hypothecated to IBHFL and further as per the submission of the respondent No. 1 the property is also mortgaged to IDBI. In the circumstances, I find that it would be proper on the part of both the parties to maintain status quo till the next date of hearing. The order of status quo is subject to following conditions:

i. Attachment of the property shall continue.

ii. The legal and constructive possession of the property in question shall remain with the Enforcement Directorate;

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

iv. No encumbrance shall be created by the appellant in respect of the said property. v. The appellant is directed not to change the nature and character of the property in question.

12. The respondent No. 1 is granted six weeks time to file the reply to the stay application with an advance copy to be served on the other side.

13. The appellant has sent an email dated 26.01.2021 with one attachment regarding inspection of O.C. No. 1329/2020 carried out on 12.01.2021. The appellant is directed to supply the copy of the same to the respondent/its counsel.

14. With the consent of both the parties, list the appeal and application on 26th April, 2021.

15. Copy of the order be given "dasti" to both the parties.