TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2007, only the vacant land 308 sq. ft. out of 1180 sq. ft. was purchased. For remaining portion, the appellant has merely produced the receipt in order to show that certain payment was made the actual owner. The possession of the appellants was not disputed by the counsel for the respondent. At the best, it may be the illegal possession. It is admitted position that no civil litigation is pending against the appellants for remaining portion either by the owner of the property or accused party or the bank. Thus, the inference cannot be drawn that the appellants have no right at all in view of having the possession since 2004. The period of 12 years in order to claim adverse possession also expired. No suit is pending against the appellants. The provisional attachment order is set aside - appeal allowed. - MP-PMLA-2225/CHN/2015 (A.D) MP-PMLA-2025/CHN/2015 (A.D) MP-PMLA-931/CHN/2014 (Stay) And FPA-PMLA-559/CHN/2014 - - - Dated:- 30-8-2019 - Justice Manmohan Singh Chairman For the Appellant : Shri P.V. Saravana Raja, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Atul Tripathi, Advocate JUDGEMENT FPA-PMLA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or illegal means. Some of those loans were in the names of fictitious persons. In some cases, the flats were not completed and as such by releasing the amounts to M/s R.S. Constructions, the amounts were misappropriated by Shri B. Subramanyam and the loans were not secured by any asset. The said loans were sanctioned and released by Shri K. Gnanasekaran, in connivance with Shri B. Subramanyam knowing fully well that they were all fictitious loans and also knowing that the construction of the same is incomplete and as such the loans were not secured by any asset/security. Moreover, Shri K. Gnanasekaran, then Branch Manager, Adyar Branch, Union Bank of India, Chennai, in his statement dated 14.3.2012 given before the Assistant Director of Enforcement, Chennai, had admitted that there were some procedural lapses on his part with regard to the verifications, viz., the identity of the borrower, the project site for which the loan was sanctioned, the documents submitted by the individual and the documents pertaining to the property, relating to the housing projects developed by Shri B. Subramanyam of M/s R.S. Constructions and that on account of his procedural lapse, there could be arou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. Case of the Respondent against the appellants are that: (a) Shri B. Subramaniam in his statement dated 24.04.2012 has admitted, interalia, that the land at Plot No. 3 was owned and possessed by one Shri N. Soundara Rajan who has given General Power of Attorney in favour of one Shri T. Harish Bhandari; that out of the above said property, a portion of land measuring 1200 Sq. ft. (46 2 by 26 0 ) was sold by Shri N. Soundara Rajan through his Power of Attorney Shri Harish Bhandari to Shri A. Ganesh and that the remaining area of 1180 Sq. ft. in the above site was sold by Shri Harish Bhandari to S/Shri J. Dinesh Kumar, R. Koteraj and Smt. Devaki. (b) Shri A. Ganesh in his statement dated 25.04.2012 has stated interalia that during 2003, the property situated at Plot No. 3, Padi Village, Saidapet Taluk, comprised in Survey No. 343/1A2, New S. No. 343/4, measuring about 1200 Sq. ft. (46 2 by 26 0 ) was purchased by him from Shri Harish Bhandari, Power Agent for Shri N. Soundara Rajan; that later, he intended to sell the above property to Shri B. Subramanyam, Proprietor, M/s. R.S. Constructions, Anna Nagar, Chennai; that he had no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 209/2007 (22.01.2007) with the S.R.O, Villivakkam in his name and in the name of his wife, Smt. Devaki Mohanavelu, a copy of the same was submitted by him; that in the building in which he was residing comprises of 740 Sqft in Ground Floor, 840 sq.ft. in First Floor and 840 Sq.ft in Second Floor; that for the remaining area, ₹ 6,00,000/- has been paid in instalments for which he does not have any written document. 9. It is also submitted on behalf of respondent that Shri T. Harish Kumar Bhandari in his statement dated 19.06.2012 has stated, interalia, that the land measuring 2380 square feet situated at No. 3, Elango Nagar, 4th Street, Padi, Chennai 600050, comprised in Survey No. 343/1A2, New Survey No. 343/4 was owned by Shri N. Soundara Rajan; that as the said land was identified by Shri. B. Subramaniyam, Proprietor of M/s. R.S. Constructions for the promotion of the Flats and on settlement of sale consideration with Shri N. Soundara Rajan, has given him General Power of Attorney for sale of the said property; that the said plot was divided into 1200 square feet, facing south abutting the road and 1180 square feet, in the rear side of the plot; that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration in future. He once again reiterated that the plot measuring 1180 sq. ft. was sold as UDS to Shri Dineshkumar, Shri R. Koteraj and Shri. Mohanavelu, measuring 330 sq. ft., 368.26 sq. ft. and 308 sq. ft. respectively; that the flat constructed by Shri Subramaniam, Proprietor, M/s. R.S Constructions, in the said site would be occupied by Shri Dineshkumar, Shri R. Koteraj and Shri. Mohanavelu and no other person could claim right over the property. 10. It is stated on behalf of respondent that the Shri P. Mohanavelu, who is by profession a B License Electrical Contractor has clearly admitted in his statement dated 11.06.2012 that he had purchased only 308 sq.ft. from Shri Soundara Rajan, through his Power Agent Shri T. Harish Kumar Bhandari. Being a person involved in the real estate field for nearly 45 years, had he purchased the entire land measuring 1180 sq.ft. in the said site, the question of registration of UDS would not have raised. On the other hand, only registration of Sale Deed to the extent of land measuring 1180 sq.ft. would have taken place. In his case, only registration of UDS to the extent of 308 sq.ft. alone has taken place. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2013 under sub-section 1 of Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was passed by the Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement. 15. The complaint was filed on 04.09.2013 under sub-section 5 of section 5 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, with prayers (i) To take on record for the purpose of adjudication under Section 8 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (ii) Declare under sub-section 2 of Section 8 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 that the said property is involved in the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (iii) Confirm the attachment of the property made under Section 5(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 vide provisional attachment order dated 08.08.2013 under Section 8(3) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 16. On 04.02.2014, order of Adjudicating Authority was passed who held that the property under provisional attachment is involved in money laundering and confirming the order of provisional attachment under Section 5(1) and the same will become after an order of confis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal owner, Shri B. Subramaniam, the appellants, Shri T. Harish Kumar Bhandari cannot be decided by this tribunal which are civil disputes. The appellants are claiming ownership on the basis of titles as well as on the basis of adverse possession if the titles are not clear. It is stated by him that the appellants are using the said property since April, 2004. 23. It is admitted position that on 22.01.2007, the Sale Deed was executed by Shri N. Soundar Rajan through Power of Attorney Shri T. Harish Bhandari in favour of the appellants with respect to the vacant land 308 sq. ft. out of 1180 sq. ft. of vacant land. (A copy of Sale Deed dated 22.01.20074 is at page 334 is placed on record ). 24. It is also not is dispute that though Shri Harish Bhandari executed Sale Deed with respect to 308 sq. ft. out of 1180 sq. ft., the appellants are in peaceful possession of the whole land admeasuring 1180 sq. ft. since April 2004. The said peaceful possession was not at all questioned before any court of law either by N. Soundar Rajan or by T. Harish Bhandariat any point of time. It is the case of the appellant that Shri Harish Bhandari later on refused to regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rch, 2014 filed by the appellantsand same is translated in English and filed by the appellants as additional documents dated 08.04.2015 at page 7 to 17. (f). Family Card issued by Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department in the name of appellants - Annexure-A21 page 652 of Typed Set dated March, 2014 filed by the appellants and same is translated in English and filed by the appellants as additional documents dated 08.04.2015 at page 24. In light of the afore stated facts, it is admittedly that the appellants are in possession of the land admeasuring 1180 sq. ft. since April 2004 till date. Appellant s possession and their title was not questioned at any point of time by the original owner / N. Soundar Rajan or his Power of Attorney / T. Harish Bhandari. Further title to the said land is to be decided by the competent civil court and not by this Tribunal. 28. It appears prima facie from the material produced on behalf of appellants that the entire proceeds of crime took place with respect to land which falls under part 2 admeasuring 1200 sq. ft. and not with the land admeasuring 1180 sq. ft. irrespective of fact whether th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f along with 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) (d) and substantive offences thereof. 29. The appellants were not made as accused persons in the said FIR. Charge sheet No. 6/2009 dated 29.08.2009 was filed. The appellants were not made as accused persons. The charge sheet deals with details of A1 / K. Gnanasekharan, the then Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Adayar Branch, Chennai. The charge sheet deals with details of A2/B. Subramaniam, Proprietor of M/s R.S. Construction. At page 50 of charge sheet deals with details of A3 / M. Sathyasheelan, Commission Agent of M/s R.S. Constructions. At page 52 of charge sheet , 7th line from the top states that M/s R.S. Constructions have misappropriated the housing loan funds by neither constructing the said flats nor allotting such flats to the said borrowers. Thus causing wrongful loss to Union Bank of India and corresponding wrongful gain to A2. At page 53 , 4th para of charge sheet deals with Elango Nagar, Padi, Chennai. In this project, at Elango Nagar, Padi, Chennai, A1 had dishonestly sanctioned and disbursed housing loans in the name of 4 borrowers for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the documents pertaining to the property in question. On account of his procedural lapse there could be around 50 instances where loans were sanctioned thereby causing a loss to his Bank. Further statement dated 24.04.2012 of Shri B. Subramanyam , Proprietor of M/s R.S. Constructions answer No.1 explaining to the question about the purchase / construction of flats by him at Elango Nagar, Padi Village, Chennai. He explains the total land measuring 2380 sq. ft. was owned and possessed by N. Soundar Rajan. He executed Power of Attorney in favour of one T. Harish Bhandari. Out of the above said property, a portion of land measuring 1200 sq. ft. was sold to Shri A. Ganesh and the remaining area of 1180 sq. ft. was sold by Shri Harish Bhandari to Shri Dinesh Kumar, R. Koteraj and Smt. Devaki and the flats were constructed . 33.2. Statement of Subramaniam with regard to ownership of 1180 sq. ft. possessed by Dinesh Kumar, Koteraj deserves to be ignored for the following reasons: Statement dated 15.06.2012 of Shri J. Dinesh Kumar given before the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement answer in No.2 explaining about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suring 1180 sq. ft . 33.5. It is submitted by the appellants that Koteraj had seen the property measuring 1200 sq. fit which is the back side of the plot measuring 1180 sq. ft. as admitted hereinabove and further his statement with respect to the 80% completion of the construction was false on the ground that the charge sheet at page 53 of Volume I filed by E.D. itself records that A2 did not complete the construction of flats at this site and abandoned the site in 2005. 33.6. The statement of Koteraj, in answer No.3 explaining to the question as to the payment of sale consideration of UDS registration measuring 368.26 sq. ft. As described in the said sale document, I have not paid any amount towards the registration of UDS in my name measuring 368.26 sq. ft. either to Shri B. Subramaniam or Harish Bhandari .. It is submitted by the appellants that the alleged Sale Deed executed in favour of Koteraj without valid consideration is void and same was admitted in his own statement mentioned herein above. 33.7. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Shri N. Soundar Rajan through his Power of Attorney, Shri Harish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erty to the extent of 1200 sq. ft. deals with a Note is reproduced hereunder:- That the huge amount involved in the offence of particulars: That the huge amount involved in the offence of money laundering has been invested on the property mentioned above for promoting housing project. Any further transaction in respect of the above property would frustrate the proceedings of investigation under PMLA, 2002. At page 37 deals with the property description Elango Nagar, 4th Street, Plot No.100, extent 1180 sq. ft. There is no encumbrance appears. It is submitted by the appellants that the Encumbrance Certificate issued by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu shows that money laundering was involved with respect to 1200 sq. ft. and given a clean chit to 1180 sq. ft. 35. Reply letter issued by Union Bank of India, Chennai to the appellant on RTI request regarding the details of the housing loan disburse in the schedule property. The second para deals with loan sanctioned to R. Koteraj against the property admeasuring 368.26 out of 1200 sq. ft. The loan sanctioned to J. Dinesh Kumar against the property admeasuring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
