TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the tune of ₹ 6 crores. Coupled with the assets attached in the PAO, the total assets attached are cumulatively worth 9,23,51,787/- crores, when admittedly, even as per the ED s own case, the total amount received by M/s. Centrum from M/s. AES Chhattisgarh Energy Private Ltd is only ₹ 5.60 crores. Some opportunity ought to have been granted to the Petitioner before passing orders attaching all her accounts and deposits. Attaching all her assets was totally unwarranted. It is directed that in place of the attachment of the assets of the Petitioner, as per the PAOs dated 22nd January, 2021 and 8th February, 2021, the Petitioner shall voluntarily keep a fixed deposit of ₹ 3 crores and not dispose of the immovable propert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aises a challenge in the present petition to the Provisional Attachment Order (hereinafter PAO ) dated 22nd January, 2021 by which her bank accounts, immovable property and shares etc. have been provisionally attached by the Enforcement Directorate (hereinafter, ED ) on the suspicion that these amounts are proceeds of crime and were used to make unauthorised payments for obtaining the coal blocks allocation. 4. A perusal of the PAO dated 22nd January, 2021 shows that the allegation in the PAO is that the Petitioner and her earlier employees have all made contradictory statements and there is no explanation for various expenses which were incurred. A total amount of ₹ 5.60 crores is stated to have been received from a company call ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n an unconnected matter, in order to consider the impact of the said judgment on the present case, this Court deemed it appropriate to hear submissions of ld. Counsels in light of the said judgment. The order passed was kept on hold and the matter was adjourned to enable counsels to make submissions. 8. Thereafter, today, counsels for the parties have been heard once again. Mr. Amit Mahajan, ld. CGSC and Mr. Asheesh Jain, ld. Counsel have pointed out that there is a subsequent PAO which has now been passed by the ED on 8th February, 2021. Vide this PAO, the ED has again modified the attachment to the following effect: 10. Now, therefore, having perused and taken into consideration the material on record placed before me, it appears ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant portions of the judgment are set out herein below: 11. The scheme of the PMLA is well intended. While it seeks to achieve the object of preventing money laundering and bring to book the offenders, it also safeguards the rights of the persons who would be proceeded against under the Act by ensuring fairness in procedure. Hence a procedure, including timeline is provided so as to ensure that power is exercised for the purpose to which the officer is vested with such power and the Adjudicating Authority is also kept in the loop. In the instant case, the procedure contemplated under Section 17 of PMLA to which reference is made above has not been followed by the Officer Authorised. Except issuing the impugned communication dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical bills and undertake her day-to-day expenses. The allegations against her in the PAOs date back to the time when she was a PR professional i.e., sometime between 2007-08 to 2015 when the FIR was lodged. 12. The allegation in the FIR is that the company M/s. AES Chhattisgarh Energy Private Ltd had received FDI from its Principal in the USA of ₹ 49.24 crores out of which ₹ 5.60 crores was disbursed to Lexicon Public Relations and Corporate Consultants (P) Ltd., for allegedly obtaining assistance in approvals/authorisations. The PAO concludes: Accordingly, the interpretational connotations regarding existence of ulterior motives of siphoning out of an amount for unspecified purposes cannot be ruled out as such disbursed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner are merely in the realm of speculation, at this stage. The letter dated 22nd January 2021 issued to M/s. Centrum attached the Petitioner s entire deposits to the tune of ₹ 6 crores. Coupled with the assets attached in the PAO, the total assets attached are cumulatively worth 9,23,51,787/- crores, when admittedly, even as per the ED s own case, the total amount received by M/s. Centrum from M/s. AES Chhattisgarh Energy Private Ltd is only ₹ 5.60 crores. Some opportunity ought to have been granted to the Petitioner before passing orders attaching all her accounts and deposits. Attaching all her assets was totally unwarranted. 15. Keeping in mind the status of the Petitioner and the above facts, it is directed that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
