9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A-PMLA-1065/HYD/2015 - - - Dated:- 26-7-2019 - Justice Manmohan Singh Chairman For the Appellants : Shri Raghenth Basant, Advocate, Shri Siddharth Rao, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Mohd. Faraz, Advocate JUDGEMENT FPA-PMLA-1053-1055, 1035 1065/HYD/2015 1. The five appeals have been filed by the above mentioned appellants challenging the common order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 04th August, 2015. 2. In FPA-PMLA-1035/HYD/2015, after hearing on 03rd September, 2015, notice was issued and status quo order was passed in the interim application. The said order was continued. 3. On 17th August, 2016, the said status quo order was modified to the following effect: Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant at the Bar that the interest amount, if permitted to be rolled over, be also treated at par with the Fixed Deposits under attachment, the interim orders vide the order dated 3rd September, 2015 are extended to cover the rolling over ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y liable for any acts and if so on what basis for the final report to accuse and for the learned special judge to take cognizance without specifying as to on vicarious liability or personnel liability? III. Whether the cognizance taken by the learned special judge without specifying as to on vicarious liability or personnel liability, is outcome of nonapplication of judicial mind and same is otherwise unsustainable for not reflecting any reasons or otherwise and is liable to be quashed? IV. To what result? All the above said points were decided in favour of the petitioner who filed the Criminal Petition No. 7584 of 2015. The operative part of the Judgement passed by the Hon‟ble High in said para 53 of the judgement read as under: 53. Point No. IV: In the result the petition is allowed and the proceedings in CC No. 24 of 2013 from the cognizance of the offences under Sections 420 120B IPC Section 12 of PC Act, taken by the Principal Special Judge for C.B.I Cases, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad so far as the petitioner/A3-Sri N. Srinivasan concerned are quashed for no basis to sustain. The bail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 73 shares of ₹ 10/- each in M/s Bharathi Cements Corporation Limited at a total price of ₹ 121.00 crores to M/s PARFICIM, SAS, FRANCE. 23. In case we go through the Judgement of Hyderabad High Court which is sub-judice before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, it would not be appropriate for us to give the final findings about the merits of the case as well as the clarification of the movable and immovable properties. 24. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that without going into the merit of the appeals and without expressing opinion about the rival submissions of the parties on merit, it would be appropriate to await the decision of the Supreme Court. After the said decision, an appropriate order would be passed in the light of the said judgment. 25. The appeal filed by the India Cement Ltd. is already adjourned to 09.07.2018 for awaiting the decision of the Apex Court. List these matters also on 9th July, 2018 for awaiting the orders of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. 5. The appeal filed by the CBI against India Cement Ltd. is still pending in the Supreme Court. In the meanwhile, the learned Memb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shing Petition filed by Mr. N. Srinivasan and held that Mr. N. Srinivasan was not personally liable for any acts of India Cements and quashed the proceedings against Mr. N. Srinivasan. For ease of reference, the operative part of the Order is reproduced herein below: 19. From the above, there is nothing against A-3 of he played personal and specific role to make him liable and in the absence of which form his mere status as Managing Director of A-7 cannot be made liable for any offence taken cognizance by the learned Special Judge from the transaction supra. . 53. Point No. IV: In the result the petition is allowed and the proceedings in CC No. 24 of 2013 from the cognizance of the offences under Sections 420 Section 120B IPC Section 12 of the PC Act, taken by the Principle Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad so far as the petitioner/A-3-Sri n. Srinivasa concerned are quashed for no basis to sustain. The bail bonds of the petitioner/A-3-Sri N. Srinivasan, if any, shall stand cancelled. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any stands closed. iv. That in view of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
