TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at we are inclined to dismiss the appeals only on the ground of jurisdiction, the other submissions made and the decisions cited by the learned Counsels for the appellants and the respondents are not delve upon in extenso by us, leaving it open for the parties to raise the same before the appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings. The reason for the same being, this Bench is of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has, after considering the provisions of the Act, has relegated the parties to the most efficacious alternative remedy available to them under the law and we do not think that we would like to interfere with same. - Letters Patent Appeal No. 1033 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 21-2-2014 - Vijay Manohar Sahai And K. J. Thaker, JJ. For the Appellant(s) : Mihir Thakor, Amrita M. Thakore, Mihir Joshi, Uday Joshi For the Respondent(s): IH Syed, Uttkarsh Sharma, Shruti Pathak JUDGMENT In Special Civil Application No. 4171 of 2012 With Civil Application No. 9361 of 2013 In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1033 of 2013 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 1038 of 2013 In Special Civil Application No. 1059 of 2012 With Civil Application No. 9417 of 2013 In Letters Patent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, SARFAESI Act]. Thereafter, the State Bank of India put up the subject property for sale through bidding in January, 2009 and 3 bids were received by the Bank. The petitioner, apprehending that the full value of the subject property may not be fetched, at the suggestion of the respondent No.5, submitted its quotation for purchase of the subject property for an amount of ₹ 2,05,00,000/and deposited ₹ 15,50,000/as EMD. Pursuant to the same, State Bank of India negotiated with the bidders and the petitioners, having increased its offer to ₹ 2,15,00,000/and being highest bidder, its bid was accepted. The petitioner deposited the balance sale consideration and in order to facilitate, the petitioner had taken a loan of ₹ 1.82 crores from one Vikalp Rasayan Private Limited and has also raised equity capital of ₹ 40 lakhs. Thereafter, on 19.02.2009 State Bank of India confirmed the sale in the petitioner's favour and issued a Sale Certificate and on 12.06.2009 conveyance deed was executed between State Bank of India and the petitioner in respect of the subject property and consequently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in a malafide manner and again cheated Punjab National Bank and therefore, the funds provided by the respondent No.5 are proceeds of crime derived from the criminal acts as described in the charge sheet. 3.5 By way of draft amendment, the petitioners have brought on record certain subsequent facts that on 11.04.2012 the respondent No.2 has filed Original Complaint No.133 of 2012 under Section 5(5) of PML Act before the adjudicating authority. The petitioner filed its reply pointing out, inter alia, that the authorities had no jurisdiction and despite of this the adjudicating authority has passed order dated 10.07.2012 confirming the provisional attachment order. Thereafter the petitioner has filed appeal along with stay application before the Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi challenging the said order dated 10.07.2012 and as on the date the same has not been heard since there is no Chairman appointed to the Appellate Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner has received a notice dated 09.10.2012 from the authorities stating that the authorities would be taking over possession of the subject property and directing the petitioner to vacate the subject property within 10 days from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and its consortium under the provisions of SARFAESI Act which have been sold to M/s. JMD Media Services Pvt. Ltd. which in turn has sold the same to the petitioners. 5.4 That by draft amendment dated 26.03.2012, the petitioner has brought on record the fact that the property in question came to be attached vide Provisional Attachment Order No.02/2012 dated 15.03.2012 issued under provisions of section 5(1) of the PML Act, a copy of which has been sent to the petitioner No.1. 5.5 Thereafter, by way of further draft amendment the petitioner has brought on record that after passing the aforesaid provisional attachment order No.2/2012, the respondent No.8 filed a complaint under Section 5(1) of the PML Act wherein the petitioners were also made party. The petitioner filed their replies to the said complaint before the adjudicating authority and explained that they were bona fide purchasers of the property as well as disclosed the details of payments made to the concerned respondent from whom the property they purchased. The petitioners also raised other contentions and in spite of that order dated 10.07.2012 came to be passed by the adjudicating authority confirming prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C. Gupta Vs. Glaxo-Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. , (2007) 7 SCC 171; 9. Ritesh Agarwal and Anr. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and Ors. Vs. (2008) 8 SCC 205; 10. School Board Election For the Parish of Pulborough Bourke and Ors. Vs. NUTT , 1894 (1) QB 725; 11. B. Rama Raju, S/o. B Ramalinga Raju Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, represented by its Secretary (Revenue) and Ors. , [2011]164 CompCas 149(AP). 7. As against this, Mr. Saiyed, learned Counsel for the Union of India, vehemently supported the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority as well as the order of the learned Single Judge and prayed that the same were passed after taking into consideration the material on record, and hence, the same may not be interfered in appeal. 8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record with their assistance. From the facts of these matters, two aspects clearly emerge, viz. (1) the order for attachment passed by the authorities is provisional and not final, and (2) the appellants-original petitioners have already preferred appeals before the Appellate Tribunal, which is pending adjudication, till d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
