9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ural Land measuring 1.00 Acre lying at Survey No. SF 91/2A1, 207/2A1 of Kallikappan Village of SRO Theppakulam. (b) Agricultural Land measuring 4.74 Acre lying at Survey No. SF 207/2A, 91/2A1, 91/2A of Kallikappan Village of SRO Theppakulam. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed Original Complaint (O.C.) bearing No.674/2017 before the Adjudicating Authority for confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO). It is the contentions of the appellants that they were not made parties either in the PAO or in the O.C. by the ED nor the Adjudicating Authority issued any notice to them even though they are the owner of the said properties and sufficient informations before them about their ownership. The PAO has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority on 31.05.2017. The questions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are that: a) Whether the respondent (ED) could have attach the properties , knowing the right of the appellants to the properties in question and without giving any notice to the appellants, and b) Whether the respondent (ED) can attach the properties which are owned by the appellants prior to the alleged commission of offence. Besides above, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hts to Shri S. Sankarnarayanan and Shri P.K.M. Selvam. The said transfer was completely unauthorized and without the knowledge of the appellants. (iv) The appellants were not aware about the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority nor were served with any summons nor made party to the proceedings (v) The appellants came to know about the aforesaid proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority in June, 2019 when the appellants decided to sell their properties due to financial constraints. (vi) The appellants have written a letter to the respondent (ED) on 28.06.2019 narrating the status about their land which was illegally attached and approached the respondent (ED) at their Chennai Office, where they were informed about the present proceedings. (vii) The appellants have filed the relevant plain copies of the documents such as Settlement Deed dated 28.09.1926, Settlement Deed dated 14.04.1930, Mortgage Deed dated 16.03.1933 & Made-over of the Mortgaged Deed dated 20.02.1936, Deed of Cultivation Made-over Rights dated 24.06.2008 and Deed of Partition dated 02.08.2013 to substantiate the chain of transfer of the aforesaid properties upto the Partition between the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1860 and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act read with Section 4(1)(A), 4(2)(A), 4(3) and 21(b)(5) of Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957 and filing of Charge-Sheet dated 19.08.2013 against M/s. M.S. Granites, M/s. Sri Aiswariya Rock Export, S/Shri Shankaranarayanan, Shri P.K.M. Selvam and 10 others for offences under Section 120(B), 147, 430, 434, 465, 467, 468, 471, 304, 105, 511, 447, 379, 406 & 420 of IPC , 1860 and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act read with Section 4(1)(A), 4(2)(A), 4(3) and 21(b)(5) of Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957 and Section 6 read with 3(a), 4(a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. As out of the aforesaid offences, the offences under Sections 120B, 420 467 & 471 of IPC, 1860 and Section 3(a) & 4(a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 are Scheduled Offences under PMLA, 2002, therefore, the respondent (ED) registered Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) No.13/2015 dated 31.12.2015 and conducted investigation and on conclusion of investigation, the respondent attached several properties including the properties involved herein. In its parawise reply, the respondent (ED) tried to justify as to why the present appellants were n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... including the reply to the appeal filed by the respondent (ED). The main question involved in the present appeal is whether there is any violation of the provisions of law as enunciated in Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. There are two properties involved in the present appeal are described above. These two properties have been attached under Section 5(1) of the PMLA, 2002 in a case arising out of registration of FIRs under different sections/acts such as IPC, Mines and Minerals Act and Explosive and Substances Act and filing of Charge-Sheet under different sections of the aforesaid Acts against Shri P.K.M. Selvam, Smt. S. Sankaranarayanan & Others, who alleged to have committed illegal minings, illegally use of explosive substances in minings and also of cheating, preparation of false & fabricated documents and using the same as genuine, etc. Out of these predicate offences, some are scheduled offences under PMLA, 2002. These two properties have been transferred admittedly by the cultivation rights holders in favour of Shri P.K.M. Selvam and Shri S. Sankaranarayanan by way of cultivable tenancy made-over agreements in the year 2006 & 2008. It is revealed from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y property as being held by a person on behalf of any other person, a copy of such notice shall also be served upon such other person: Provided further that where such property is held jointly by more than one person, such notice shall be served to all persons holding such property. (2) The Adjudicating Authority shall, after- (a) considering the reply, if any, to the notice issued under sub- section (1); (b) hearing the aggrieved person and the Director or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf, and (c) taking into account all relevant materials placed on record before him, by an order, record a finding whether all or any of the properties referred to in the notice issued under subsection (1) are involved in money-laundering: Provided that if the property is claimed by a person, other than a person to whom the notice had been issued, such person shall also be given an opportunity of being heard to prove that the property is not involved in money-laundering." The second most important point is that as per Section 8 of PMLA, 2002 Adjudicating Authority ought to have given opportunity of being heard to the appellants before deciding the case. On perusal of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
