9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icant for replacement of immovable property under attachment with fixed deposit. The applicant has also not made out a case for exceptional circumstances and to justify the same for release of immovable properties in lieu of fixed deposits. Though the counsel for applicant also offered extra amount of fixed deposit equal to interest for the period from the date of attachment but such a plea cannot be accepted in the absence of any provision under the law and considering the fact that after attachment of immovable property, there may be appreciation in the market value of those properties which is not ascertained. Further, the applicant has not challenged that on the date of attachment, other properties such as deposits in bank were available which could or should have been attached by the respondent instead of four immovable properties as attached which would have served the purpose of attachment. Rather the plea of the respondent that he has attached assets of the applicant on 4-10-2012 on the basis of the statement of the director of applicant company u/s 50 of PMLA and other material/detail of assets as available after investigation till then was not even disputed by the applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2006 for allotment of 250 acres of land at Jadcherla, Mahaboobnagar. Instead, after several rounds of negotiations, APIIC indicated to the applicant/appellant that it would develop the pharmaceutical formulations SEZ by itself and would then allot land to the applicant as one of the anchor clients which, in turn, would improve the viability of the SEZ and attract other similarly situated companies who would be encouraged to invest in the SEZ due to the participation of the applicant and other anchor clients. 4. He submitted that vide letter dated 27-10-2006, the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India gave its in-principle approval to APIIC for development of a Pharmaceutical Formulations SEZ at Jadcherla, Mahaboobnagar District in the State of Andhra Pradesh in an area of 250 acres (hereinafter SEZ at Jadcherla ). After several rounds of negotiations and discussions with the officials of APIIC, the applicant addressed a letter dated 17-11-2006, to the then VC and MD of APIIC, Mr. B. P Acharya, requesting for allotment of 75 acres of land at the SEZ at Jadcherla along with a cheque for ₹ 52,50,000/- towards 10% EMD. In response thereto, APIIC made an in-principle off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Y.S. Rajshekhar Reddy, the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh. Pursuant to the said Order, the CBI registered an FIR No. RC No. 19(A)/2011-CBI- Hyd., dated 17th August 2011, under Ss. 120B, 409, 420, 477A of the IPC U/Ss. 13(2) R/W. 13(1)(c) (d) PCA, 1988, wherein the applicant/appellant herein was arraigned as Accused No. 21 (hereinafter the FIR ). The primary allegation in the FIR was that the Government of Andhra Pradesh under the leadership of the then Chief Minister Late Dr. Y.S. Rajshekhar Reddy granted favours/benefits/concessions to certain private individuals/companies as a quid pro quo for investments made by the said private individuals and corporations in companies promoted by Mr. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy. Subsequently, the respondent No. 1 registered the present ECIR No. 09/HZO/2011 dated 30-8-2011 wherein the applicant/appellant herein was arraigned as Accused No. 21. 9. He submitted that the CBI filed the Chargesheet dated 30-3-2012 wherein the appellant was arraigned as Accused No. 4 for commission of offences under Section 120B r/w Section 420, which it is respectfully submitted is wholly baseless, false and vexatious without any basis whatsoever. On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt which was contrary to the mandate of Section 8(1) of the PML Act. The applicant herein filed its reply dated 13-12-2012 to the show cause notice clearly demonstrating that the Provisional Attachment Order was bad in law and praying the Adjudicating Authority ought not to confirm the provisional attachment of the properties of the applicant. After conclusion of the oral hearing, the applicant herein even filed detailed Written Submissions before the Adjudicating Authority on 7-1-2013. However, the Adjudicating Authority erroneously passed the Impugned Order, whereby, provisional attachment of the applicant s properties was confirmed under Section 8(3) after arriving at a wholly erroneous and factually incorrect finding under Section 8(1) that properties provisionally attached are involved in money laundering. He submitted that the impugned Order, insofar as it applies to the applicant herein, is not only bad in law but also factually incorrect even as from a plain reading of the Complaint and in complete contradiction to findings arrived by the Adjudicating Authority elsewhere in the Impugned Order. 11. The ld. Counsel for applicant vehemently submitted that the aforesaid pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant would be constrained to approach this Hon ble Tribunal in the event that no response was received within 7 days thereof. 14. The counsel submitted that the applicant/appellant has not received any response to its letter dated 25-1-2014 and is therefore constrained to approach this Hon ble Court by way of the present application praying that directions be issued to the respondent No. 1 to accept the Fixed Deposit Receipt for a total sum of ₹ 5.60 crores to be furnished by the applicant/appellant and in lieu thereof release the immovable properties listed at Serial Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 above from provisional attachment under PMLA. 15. He submitted that the Hetero Group of Companies, of which the applicant/appellant is an integral part, is a research based global pharmaceutical group focused on development, manufacturing and marketing of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs), Intermediate Chemicals Finished Dosages with an annual turnover of over ₹ 5,500 crores. Furthermore, the applicant/appellant independently has an annual turnover of over ₹ 1,000 crores. He submitted that as a part of larger business plan, the applicant intends to augment its ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it the FDRs in place of the lands attached as it would defeat the purpose of the PMLA. He submitted that the application for the above reason only is not maintainable. 20. The counsel submitted that the applicant is one of the accused of schedule offence. The properties in question were attached under the provision of PMLA which are proceeds of crime as defined under Section 2(l)(u) read with provisions of Section 2(1)(zb) of PMLA. The provisional attachment order was passed on 4-10-2012 and confirmation order for attachment was passed on 15-2-2013. 21. The counsel submitted that the instant application has been filed for interim directions to accept the fixed deposits in the place of immovable properties/land which is not supported by any express statutory provisions of PMLA and the Rules framed thereunder and as amended till date. The Prevention of Money Laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013 notified on 19-8-2013 does not provide for such replacement. He submitted that equivalent value of share of the person involved in the offence of money laundering from any immovable property is under joint own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for the value thereof so that assets equal to proceeds of crime i.e. ₹ 8.6 crores are available for proceedings relating to confiscation under PMLA and if the four immovable properties are allowed to be replaced by fixed deposits of equivalent value, the purpose of the attachment will be served in full. On the face of it, the prayer and pleas in its support appear to be reasonable but on a deep dive we find that the same cannot be allowed as the pleas are without merit. At this stage we are not deciding whether the attachment of properties is right or wrong as the same will be decided at the time of disposal of the appeal. Assuming that the attachment order is sustainable, we agree with the plea of the respondent that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no provision under PML Act and Rules made thereunder which will entitle the applicant for replacement of immovable property under attachment with fixed deposit. 28. The applicant has also not made out a case for exceptional circumstances and to justify the same for release of immovable properties in lieu of fixed deposits. Though the counsel for applicant also offered extra amount of fixed deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
