9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 942X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to as 'the Act'). 2. Three parties must be noticed namely, the petitioner, Thapar Infrastructure Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'TI Limited') and Chandana Developers Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'CDP Limited'). 3. The petitioner owns a piece of land. By an agreement dated 2-1-2006, the petitioner agreed to sell the same to TI Limited. TI Limited advanced a sum of Rs. 25 lacs towards earnest money by two cheques dated 2-1-2006 and 19-1-2006. Disputes and differences arose between the petitioner and TI Limited. TI Limited filed an FIR against the petitioner for offences inter alia under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar by an order dated 18-4-2009 accepted the u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Indian Penal Code. 7. There is, therefore, no connection between the land which was a subject matter of the agreement dated 2-1-2006 between the petitioner and TI Limited on the one hand and the land that was a subject matter of the agreement between TI Limited and CDP Limited entered into in March, 2006. Secondly, the amounts of Rs. 11 lacs and Rs. 3.50 crores were received by the TI Limited from CDP Limited in March, 2006 i.e. after the amount of Rs. 25 lacs was received by the petitioner by the two cheques dated 2-1-2006 and 19-1-2006. Thus, the amounts of Rs. 11 lacs and Rs. 3.50 crores received by the TI Limited was not utilized for the payment of Rs. 25 lacs by the TI Limited to the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so provisionally attached for a period of 180 days. This attachment order is also addressed not to the petitioner but to its Director, Satish Kumar Jindal. 10. A complaint was filed before the adjudicating authority under Section 5(5) of the Act against one Hardip Singh Thaper, TI Limited, one Riazuddin, one Smt. Pritam Kaur and the said Satish Kumar Jindal. This complaint also does not contain any allegations against the petitioner as such. It, however, confirms the provisional attachment order dated 31-12-2014. The adjudicating authority by an order dated 12-5-2015 disposed of the complaint. As regards the said Satish Kumar Jindal this is all that the complaint states :- "Following written submissions have been made by Complainant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention to any material which indicates even prima facie that the said sum of Rs. 25 lacs had been derived or obtained directly or indirectly by the petitioner or by Hardip Singh Thaper or by TI Limited as a result of criminal activity whether relating to a scheduled offence or otherwise. The only contention was that this sum of Rs. 25 lacs may have been obtained by TI Limited from CDP Limited. There is, however, nothing that indicates the same. At the cost of repetition, TI Limited paid the sum of Rs. 25 lacs to the petitioner on 2-1-2006 whereas TI Limited was paid the amount of Rs. 3.61 crores by CDP Limited only on 27-3-2006 and 6-4-2006. Mr. Goyal was unable to furnish any link between the said sum of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion was dismissed on the ground that the adjudicating authority had no power to review the order. The petitioner, therefore, finds itself in a predicament. It finds itself with no remedy. 14. For more than one reason, we are inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226. The respondents adopted proceedings against the Director instead of doing so against the petitioner company. The petitioner's Director fairly deposited the amount of Rs. 25 lacs with the respondents. The proceedings were initiated by the respondents against the Director and not against the company. The maintainability of such proceedings itself is doubtful. However, when the Director sought to appeal against the order, the appeal was dismissed on the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
