2015 (12) TMI 1736 - AT - Money Laundering

Offence under PMLA Act - provisional attachment of various properties - Held that - The arguments of the appellant that (i) the flat No. 204 was sold to Sh. Sunny Priyadarshi without receipt of any money as he had confidence on him on account of earlier transactions with him, (ii) that on the date of execution of sale deed dated 5-2-2013, he has not received any money except post-dated cheques, (iii) that the sale deed No. 2537, dated 5-2-2013 was conditional to the payment/release/honoring of the four cheques which were returned unpaid when presented for payment in bank and (iv) that since Sh. Sunny Priyadarshi has not paid the sale consideration to the appellant firm, hence, the appellant firm is owner of the said flat are not sustainable and are liable to be rejected. Even if the arguments of the appellant that he has not received the sale consideration as all the four cheques have bounced is upheld, still the ownership of the flat No. 204 is also with Sh. Sunny Priyadarshi as all the rights in the property have been transferred by appellant to Sh. Sunny Priyadarshi through deed of absolute sale registered at No. 2537 on 5-2-2013 with the District Registrar Office, Patna. Admittedly the title suit bearing No. 541 of 2013 before the Sub-Judge-1, Patna, Bihar against Sh. Sunny Priyadarshi is pending adjudication and the competent court has not declared the above sale deed No. 2537, dated 5-2-2013 executed by the appellant in favour of Sh. Sunny Priyadarshi as null and void, fraudulent and without consideration and Sh. Sunny Priyadarshi continues to be the owner of the above flat No. 204. Thus the appellant has no rights in the attached property flat No. 204 as claimed by him. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of Flat No. 204
2. Validity of Sale Deed No. 2537
3. Allegations of Collusion and Fraud
4. Provisional Attachment of Properties under PMLA

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership of Flat No. 204:
The appellant, M/s. Govinda Constructions, claimed ownership of Flat No. 204, asserting that the sale consideration cheques provided by Sh. Sunny Priyadarshi bounced and thus the sale was nullified. The appellant argued that the sale of the flat was conditional on the honoring of these cheques, which did not happen, making the appellant the rightful owner. However, the respondent contended that the ownership rights were transferred to Sh. Sunny Priyadarshi through a duly registered sale deed, making him the legal owner unless the sale deed is declared null and void by a competent court.

2. Validity of Sale Deed No. 2537:
The sale deed No. 2537, dated 5th February 2013, was scrutinized to determine its validity. The appellant claimed the deed was conditional upon the payment of the sale consideration through post-dated cheques, which bounced. The respondent argued that the sale deed was an "absolute sale" deed, not conditional, and the entire sale consideration was acknowledged as received by the appellant at the time of execution. The tribunal found that the sale deed was indeed an absolute sale, and the appellant had acknowledged receipt of the full sale consideration before the execution of the deed.

3. Allegations of Collusion and Fraud:
The respondent alleged that the appellant colluded with Sh. Sunny Priyadarshi to project the flat as untainted by claiming non-receipt of sale consideration through post-dated cheques. The tribunal noted discrepancies in the appellant's claims, such as the timing of the cheques' deposit and the knowledge of their bouncing before the bank's official notification. The tribunal found considerable merit in the respondent's argument that the appellant and Sh. Sunny Priyadarshi colluded to avoid attachment under PMLA.

4. Provisional Attachment of Properties under PMLA:
The tribunal examined the provisional attachment of Flat No. 204 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The appellant argued that there was no link between the flat and the proceeds of crime generated by Sh. Sunny Priyadarshi. However, the tribunal upheld the provisional attachment, noting that the flat was purchased by Sh. Sunny Priyadarshi, who was involved in money laundering activities, and the sale deed had not been declared null and void by a competent court.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that:
- The sale deed No. 2537 was an absolute sale and not conditional.
- The appellant had acknowledged receipt of the full sale consideration.
- The appellant failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the discrepancies in the handling of the cheques.
- The provisional attachment of Flat No. 204 under PMLA was justified.

All pending applications were closed, and each party was left to bear its own costs.