9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 942X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not maintainable. The petitioner’s application for being impleaded before the adjudicating authority was also dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable as the adjudicating authority held that it had no power of review. Most important, there is no link between the said sum of ₹ 25 lacs and the alleged proceeds of crime namely the sum of ₹ 3.61 crores received by TI Limited from CDP Limited. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer (i) The FDR shall be returned together with the accretions thereto, if any. It is clarified that in the event of any evidence being obtained by the respondents in respect of the said sum of Rs. 25 lacs, they are always at liberty to take necessary action in acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Amritsar bearing Civil Suit No. 62/17-6-2006 for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from alienating, selling or transferring the said land to any person except the TI Limited. By an order dated 1-2-2008, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) dismissed the suit for default. Therefore, the transaction between the petitioner and TI Limited which commenced with the agreement dated 2-1-2006 ended with the dismissal of the suit on 1-2-2008. The suit and the FIR filed by TI Limited thus came to an end and the petitioner forfeited the earnest money of Rs. 25 lacs. 5. This brings us to the facts on the basis of which the respondents have taken action inter alia under the Act. 6. TI Limited entered into an agreement in March ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIR was also registered on 27-10-2010 against TI Limited under the Act. The petitioner is not a party to the ECIR either. This brings us to the facts leading to the attachment of the said sum of Rs. 25 lacs forfeited by the petitioner in respect of the said agreement dated 2-1-2006 with TI Limited. The respondents issued a summons on 22-4-2014 upon one Satish Kumar Jindal, a Director of the petitioner company. It must be noted at this stage itself that the agreement dated 2-1-2006 was entered into not by Satish Kumar Jindal in his individual capacity but by the petitioner company. Satish Kumar Jindal by his letter answered the summons and by a letter dated 1-5-2014 set out some of the above facts. By a further letter dated 25-8-2014, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the amount of ₹ 25 lacs was given to Sh. Satish Jindal by Sh. Hardeep Singh Thaper much before he (Hardeep Singh) received ₹ 3 crores 61 lacs from Sh. Narendra Singh Chandna. However, as per the provisions of Section 2(u) which reads as under :- proceeds of crime means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a schedule offence or the value of any such property; The other property of the accused can be attached in lieu of the value of the proceeds of crime, therefore the fact mentioned by the respondent No. 5 is based on the wrong interpretation of law, which cannot be accepted. 6. Defendants has not denied havin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt matter is concerned, there is yet another difficulty. The agreement dated 2-1-2006 was entered into between TI Limited on the one hand and the petitioner on the other. Satish Kumar Jindal was not a party to the transaction in his personal capacity but only as a Director of the petitioner. On the one hand, the summons were issued by the respondents to Satish Kumar Jindal and Satish Kumar Jindal deposited the amount of Rs. 25 lacs but on the other, the appeal filed by Satish Kumar Jindal against the order of the adjudicating authority dated 12-5-2015 was dismissed on the ground that he was not claiming any right in the sum of Rs. 25 lacs in his personal capacity. His contention that he was aggrieved by the order dated 12-5-2015 as he was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
