9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1086X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entioned nor the reasons to believe are given. The plea taken by the appellant is of serious in nature, however, this tribunal at present is not inclined to pass the order to defreeze the immovable property in question in view of serious allegations made in the FIR though the charge-sheet in the schedule offence is yet to be filed. The role of appellant would have to be seen once the charge-sheet is filed. Till that time, the appellant should be allowed to lease-out the property to third party. I am of the view that once the retention proceedings under section 17(4) were pending, the appellant ought to have waited before execution of lease-agreement with third party. In view of alleged allegations mentioned in the FIR, the immovable property cannot be defreezed. Thus, the impugned order is partly modified in view of the finding arrived in paras 8 12 of my order. As far as freezing of bank accounts are concerned, the same are de-freezed subject to the condition that the appellant shall not deal with the balance amount lying in the accounts. The said accounts, however can be operated by the appellant. As far as immovable properties are concerned, the interim order passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) as on date. (iii) IOB has further informed that M/s. Colour Wave ( H K) Ltd. Accused having office address at G/F, CAR, PO, Commercial Building, 18-20, Lyndherst Terrace Central Hong Kong (Also at 4/E, Flat D-E, Wah Factory Building, 50-60 Wong Chuk Hang Road, Aberdeen) is the beneficiary of all the fraudulent SWIFT Messages sent. (iv) Further, Brigadier (Retd.) M.S. Dullat, Accused , is the father-in-law of Accused No.1 and is Director in M/s. Vyapar Agrotech Limited in which the Accused No.5 Mr. Aman Preet Singh Sodhi is another Director. (v) The Indian Overseas Bank ( IOB in short) has informed that the Accused No.1 (Mr. Ashu Mehra), the master mind, was indulging in issuing Letters of Comfort (LOC)/Letters of Undertaking through SWIFT messages fraudulently in collusion with others to cheat the Bank: that further the overseas banks had provided Buyers Credit to their customers on the basis of the LOC issued by the IOB, Chandigarh and hence the said overseas banks were demanding IOB to remit the said amount to them. It has been further informed by the IOB that on verification of their records, it was found that no such request for letter of comfort to the Buyers Cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .04.2017. 5. The immovable properties of he appellant were also freezed. The details of which are mentioned in item no. 9 of Table-3 and serial no. 1 9 of Table-8 of retention application filed under section 17(4) of the Act. The prayer of the said application was allowed by the impugned order which is also challenged by the appellant apart of other defendants. 6. Case of the appellant is that: (a) Against the Bank account of the Appellant in question, not a single transaction has been pointed out to justify its freezing, even though it is alleged by the ED that the account statement of such bank account were examine. The Appellant‟s bank account was frozen on the following on the basis of apprehension 14. that, certain bank accounts of the Accused and their associates were also identified which might have been used for money-laundering. (b) The Appellant‟s bank account was kept frozen based only on a presumption that the said accounts might have been involved in money laundering. (c) The said Show-Cause Notice did not put the appellant to notice as to freezing of his bank accounts and continuation thereof. The Show-Cause Notice does not eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ency of appeal, the appellant had also filed an application allowing the appellant to leased out the frozen property to third party, it was contended by the appellant that after deduction of expenses, the appellant shall deposit the remaining amount with ED. The said prayer was opposed mainly on the ground that the lease deed was executed between the appellant and third party during the pendency of retention application. Counsel for appellant no doubt admits that against the appellant, no proceedings says that there was no bar as the property was not attached under section 5(1) and it was merely frozen. It would cause no hardship if rental be earned. Counsel for the respondent no doubt admits that against the appellant no proceeding were initiated u/s 5(1) of the Act and the immovable property was never attached, however, it is argued by him that the appellant may use the property by his personal use however third party interest cannot be created. 11. It appears from the material placed on record by the appellant that the respondent, despite of interim order on 26.3.2018 passed by this Tribunal, has issued a communication to other authority not to grant the approval/licens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
