TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants are in a better footing as the property in question has been acquired prior to the alleged commission of offences by the husband of Smt. Seema Garg and there is no allegation that the proceeds of crime has been used in any manner to acquire the property in question - There is nothing on record to show that any prosecution complaint with respect to property in question has been filed. The provisional attachment order coupled with order dated 20.10.2016 of the adjudicating authority to the extent of property in question purchased by the appellants is set aside - application disposed off. - MP-PMLA-3121/JL/2017 (U/s 35) MP-PMLA-3066/JL/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1605/JL/2017, MP-PMLA-3123/JL/2017 (U/s 35) MP-PMLA-3067/JL/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1606/JL/2017, MP-PMLA-3124/JL/2017 (U/s 35) MP-PMLA-3068/JL/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1607/JL/2017 - - - Dated:- 3-9-2019 - Justice Manmohan Singh Chairman And Shri G.C. Mishra Member For the Appellant : Shri Aman Kochhar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mohd. Faraz, Advocate JUDGEMENT FPA-PMLA-1605,1606 1607/DLI/2017 The present appeals ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eta Garg w/o Jagmohan Garg, Umesh Kumar s/o Jagmohan Garg, Mother, Smt. Seema Garg w/o Vinod Garg and Saiyarh Garg w/o Raman Kumar Garg in their different accounts maintained with DBC Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market Branch, Ludhiana. (d) That the offences punishable under Section 420,467 and 471 of I.P.C. ,1860 registered under FIR No. 126 dated 26.07.2013, as committed by above mentioned accused persons are predicate offence under PMLA, 2002, accordingly an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) bearing no. ECIR/JLZO/06/2013 dated 14.08.2013 was registered by Jalandhar Zonal Office of Directorate of Enforcement, for investigation of the matter under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering act, 2002. During the investigation conducted under the Provisions of PMLA, 2002, it emerged that M/s Jaldhara Exports, Ludhiana having VAT no. 03472071375 had obtained VAT refund of ₹ 1,56,76,190/- from Excise and Taxation Department Ludhiana. It was seen that VAT refund amount totaling ₹ 1,56,76,160/- was transferred on 26.03.2013 in the SBI account no. 30353206938 of M/s Jaldhara Exports, thereafter the same was transferred to SBI account no. 32857020457 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y against the said property. The bank had issued NOC dated 26.04.2013 and after the said NOC the appellants and others had purchased the same and got it registered on 03.05.2013. (e) That the said property on the day of confirmation of the O.C. did not stand in the name of Smt. Seema Garg and this fact was well within the knowledge of Smt. Seema Garg who had intentionally and deliberately suppressed this material fact before the authority and the authority and the department did not follow due diligence and in fact were negligent as they did not even care to investigate to ascertain the true and correct facts. (f) That is settled law, that it is not the property, but the sale consideration which is liable to the attached thus as held by the Hon ble High Court of Madras in C. Chellamuthu Case, it was the sale consideration which had passed on to Smt. Seema Garg which ought to have been attached by the Department. (g) That the appellants had purchased the said property in question much before any action was initiated by the Enforcement Directorate, and as such when the appellants purchased the property in question there was no prohib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by taking recourse to a GPA, as long as the transaction is genuine and the same shall be registered by the Registrar/Sub Registrar. (j) That the appellants are a bonafide purchasers and the sale consideration paid is earned thorough legal means as the same is paid through the bank. That the appellants are not accused of being involved in any criminal activities neither they are the benamidar of Smt. Seema Garg. That the respondent have never stated that the appellants were or are in connivance with Mrs Seema Garg, the respondent has further failed to establish any live link or nexus between the appellants and Smt. Seema Garg, there have been no inter connected transactions of any kind between the appellants and Smt. Seems Garg other than the sale deed in question. The respondent has failed to prove that sale consideration paid by the appellants were obtained through illegitimate means, the appellants have proved beyond doubt that their purchase are genuine and the property in their hands is untainted, as the respondent has been negligent in investigating the matter now the only course available to the respondent is to attach sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered power of attorney, sale deeds, copies of the bank statements, no objection certificate dated 26.04.2013 issued by Bank of India, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana, translated copies of revenue records and reply filed by the respondent. (b) It is not disputed that the appellants were not made a party before the adjudicating authority even though the appellants have interest over the property in question. (c) It is also not disputed that Smt. Seema Garg purchased the property in the year 2011 and the same was mortgaged with the Bank of India. (d) The respondent does not dispute the fact that the Smt. Seema Garg executed power of attorney in favour of Mr. Vikas Jain who executed the sale deeds in favour of the appellants and another on 03.05.2013. It is reveled from the copies of documents that the Vendees of the entire property in question repaid the loan amount borrowed by Smt. Seema Garg from Bank of India and got the property in question released from the bank s mortgage before the execution of the sale deeds. (e) The most important facts in this case is that the allegation against Sh. Vinod Kumar husband of Smt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of the appellants are in a better footing as the property in question has been acquired prior to the alleged commission of offences by the husband of Smt. Seema Garg and there is no allegation that the proceeds of crime has been used in any manner to acquire the property in question. (l) There is nothing on record to show that any prosecution complaint with respect to property in question has been filed. 6. Conclusion We are considering the fact concerning the property purchased by the appellants. There is no point in remanding the matter in view of the reasons stated above and in the light of documents placed before us. We have considered the materials on records as stated above and of the considered view that the property in question purchased by the appellants are not in any way connected with proceeds of crime in the hands of the appellants nor the said property was acquired out of proceeds of crime by Smt. Seema Garg in the year 2011, hence not liable to be attached. In view of the above the provisional attachment order coupled with order dated 20.10.2016 of the adjudicating authority to the extent of property in qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
