MUMBAI, Nov. 14 -- A special PMLA court in Mumbai has rejected the discharge application filed by a real estate firm run by the family of former Maharashtra minister and senior NCP leader Nawab Malik in a money laundering case linked to fugitive gangster Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, and has directed that charges be framed against all the accused. While dismissing the discharge plea of M/s Malik Infrastructure, special judge Satyanarayan R Navander on Tuesday stated that there exists "sufficient material on record to frame charges against all the accused. The court has directed the accused to be present on November 18 for the framing of charges. The order refers to the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) allegation that Malik, in conspiracy with gangster Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar's network (D-Company), participated in laundering proceeds from the unauthorised acquisition of a Kurla property known as Goawala Compound, comprising multiple plots. The order states, "Nawab Malik, in connivance with D-Company members - Haseena Parkar, Salim Patel and accused Sardar Khan - participated in laundering of illegally usurped property." The court further observed that the property was "illegally registered in the name of M/s Solidus Investments Pvt Ltd, owned by the family members of Nawab Malik", and that rent collected through M/s Solidus Investments Pvt Ltd and M/s Malik Infrastructure constituted proceeds of crime. The order outlines the ED's reliance on documents including Powers of Attorney dated March 12, 1999 and July 23, 1999, a leave and licence agreement dated July 18, 2003, and a declaration dated July 26, 2003, all purportedly executed in respect of the Goawala Compound property originally belonging to Munira S Plumber and Marium Goawala. The court noted that the Power of Attorney was found to be forged, and that the subsequent transfer of property based on it was unlawful. It records Munira S Plumber's statement that except for the first Power of Attorney executed in March 1999, "none of the documents purportedly executed by her were genuine," and that she had not received any consideration for the alleged sale. Rejecting the argument that M/s Malik Infrastructure was a separate entity that came into existence later and was unconnected to the earlier transactions, the court held that the company was "represented by Accused No1 (Nawab Malik) himself, who is a partner and controlling mind of the said company."...