9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2002 read with Rule 5(2) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013, asking the appellants to vacate the following properties and to hand over the possession of same to the respondent (ED) within the stipulated 10 days period from the date of receipt of the notices. The said notices all dated 9-1-2021 were served on the appellants on the same date and the stipulated 10 days expired on 18-1-2021, so the applications were taken up for hearing on 15-1-2021 and a temporary 'status quo' order was passed. 3. The properties listed in the aforesaid eviction notices are as below: (i) Plot No. 1, Group Housing Yojana, Khasra no. 1440/1, 1440/2, 1441/1, 1441/2, 1442/2, Village - Muhana, Tehsil - Sanganer R. No. 2009398000062 dated 6-1-2009. Area - 7254.23 Sq. Yd. (ii) Plot No. 34AB, Aavasiya Yojana, Satya Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur R.No.2011067002802 dated 18-3-2011 Area - 257.22 Sq. Yd. (215.06 Sq. Mtr.) (iii) Plot No. 34A, Aavasiya Yojana, Satya Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur R.No.2011067002801 dated 18-3-2011 Area - 256.41 Sq. Yd. (214.38 Sq. Mtr.) (iv) Plot and constr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 10,60,10,743/-and not Rs. 14,60,10,743/- as the respondent (ED) has subsequently found more properties. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants/applicants has referred to the explanations with regards to each and every property attached in the present proceedings. It is submitted by him that properties at serial no. (i) to (iv) are owned by M/s. Safe Infracon Pvt. Ltd. and that appellant Smt. Meena Devi has no shareholding in the said company and not a single penny has been invested by Smt. Meena Devi Sharma in her personal capacity and Shri Mohit Sharma has also not made any investments in his personal capacity in the company. The company is a separate legal entity and there is no proof on record that either the appellant Smt. Meena Devi or Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma or Shri Mohit Sharma have invested in the aforesaid properties no. (i) to (iv) owned by the company. 6. With regards to property at serial no. (v) above, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/applicants that this property was purchased in the year 2005 by the appellant no. 1 Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma for a consideration amount of Rs. 1.5 Lakh which has been sold by the vendor again to one Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs to Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma, the appellant no. 1 and this property has been acquired after his termination from service and that the ACB, Jaipur has also not added this property as part of list of properties in the disproportionate of assets case. 12. With regards to property at serial no. (xiii) above, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/applicants that the property belongs to RAG Hospital and is under lease from Rajasthan Housing Board and he has explained the acquiring of property at serial no. (xiii) above in detail. 13. On the aforesaid grounds, the learned counsel for the appellants/applicants has prayed for ad-interim stay of the impugned order and also submitted for the staying of the operation of the impugned notices. 14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent (ED) strongly raised objection for grant of any stay on the operation of the impugned order as well as stay on the operation of the impugned notices. 15. It is submitted by her that the properties at serial no. (i) to (iv) belongs to the company M/s. Safe Infracon Pvt. Ltd. so, Smt. Meena Devi should not have any objection if these properties are attached and possession ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma. 21. The learned counsel for the respondent (ED) further has made reference to statement of Shri Shiv Charan Sharma, brother of appellant Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma as described in para no(s).11.12 at page no(s).138 & 139 respectively of the Original Complaint and submitted that his brother denied any loan to M/s. Safe Infracon Pvt. Ltd. but had given loan of Rs. 12.7 Lakhs to Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma through cheques but he do not remember in whose name he had given these cheques and that he disputed the execution of Will dated 7-11-1998 of his father Shri Hatila Ram in favour of Smt. Meena Devi. 22. With regards to property at serial no. (xiii) the learned counsel for the respondent (ED) has made reference to page no(s).100 onwards of the Original Complaint and submitted that details of the money trails of flow of proceeds of crime placed in the RAG Trust as explained in the table through inter connected transactions in those bank accounts through various complex maze and the money routed to RAG Trust are nothing but proceeds of crime. 23. The learned counsel for the respondent has also specifically made reference to para no(s).12 & 13 at page no(s). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. (v) is an agricultural land and was purchased by the appellant no. 1 against consideration of Rs. 1.5 Lakh cash in 2005 and the property at serial no. (xii) consists of plot with building and three shops situated at 119/491, which belongs to appellant no. 1 by way of agreement to sale and consideration amount of that property is stated to be Rs. 57 Lakhs and not found part of Charge Sheet filed by ACB, Jaipur and that Rs. 57 Lakhs. The consideration amount for both the properties are stated to have been paid out of the amount received from the probated Will executed by Shri Hatila Ram Bohra, father of the appellant no. 1 Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma and it is stated that the said probate had been decreed by the competent court. It is the objection of the respondent, on the basis of the statement made by the brother of Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma, that the Will is a forged one, so that cannot be relied upon and that the property at serial no. (xii) was not disclosed but the same was found during the course of investigation under PMLA. The thing is that the Will stated to have been probated and decreed by the competent court and that at this stage for the purpose of hearing on stay appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is of the FIR registered by ACB. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the cheque of Rs. 3,00,000/- was found cleared, however, the other cheque for Rs. 4,50,000/- was found not cleared and Rs. 3,00,000/- was managed out of cash deposits and the possibility of payment of remaining amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- in cash could not be ruled out and that the amount so utilized in purchasing this property has been infused out of the money received as illegal gratifications and the Sansthan is not doing any effective work or business, nature of any such donation appeared to the respondent as dubious. 31. In this regard it is seen that the property at serial no. (viii) above has been purchased in the name of the Sansthan in which the appellant Smt. Meena Devi is the Secretary. The consideration amount paid towards purchase of this property is dubious or not would be examined at the time of hearing of the appeal on merit. The appellant society, for the purpose of grant of the order of status quo, has made out a prima facie case. Therefore, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to the property mentioned at serial no. (viii) above, sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
