9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y or he would have waited the decision of the High Court where CBI has filed the appeal against the order passed by Special Court, CBI, who released the said property subject to certain conditions. At the maximum, mutual funds could have been taken into its possession till the orders are passed by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi. No harm would have caused as the attachment orders are already continuing redundant. IO ought to have informed the Hon ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in advance before taking any steps in respect of mutual funds which are the subject matter of appeals filed by the CBI, in order to alter the status of movable property which was released by the Special Court in relation to same subject matter of property. Under these circumstances, prima facie the mutual funds must be restored to the original position with the Reliance Nippon Life Asset Management Ltd. If it is not possible, the IO shall prepare the FD for the same amount in the name of Sandeep Tyagi for the period of one year and shall keep the same with the respondent. It is clarified that once the compliance is made, the status quo order shall continue. The appellants shall not deal the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zen assets, subject to conditions. The relevant observations of the Trial Court are reproduced as hereunder: 17. In the case in hand, it is alleged that accused Sanjeev Tyagi, Director of M/s. Mainik Agency P. Ltd. Sandeep Tyagi have taken bribe amount in cash in the year 2004-2005 and acted as middleman, to gain favour to M/s. Agusta Westland, relation to sale of 12 VVIP Chopper of Agusta Westland Co. The bribe amount was paid in 2004-2005, while applicant M/s. Mainak Agency P. Ltd. was purchased in the year 2009. It cannot be said it was purchased out of the same bribe money which was taken by the accused in 2004-2005. Even as per the prosecution, number of transactions have taken place after purchase of said Mainak Agency P. Ltd and the laundered amount received from M/s. Agusta Westland was routed back through banking channel in the guise of acquiring M/s. Mainak Agency P. Ltd. and that the said amount have been invested/reinvested by M/s. Mainak Agency P. Ltd. in acquiring mutual funds, shares and FDRs. It is also noted that the said firm continued to work from the year 2009 and its accounts/FDRs have been seized in the year 2018 after filing of charge-she ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ANR. Respondents CORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA ORDER 17.05.2019 Crl.M.A. 10323/2019 (Exemption) Allowed subject to just exceptions CRL.M.C. 2571/2019 and Crl.M.A.10322/2019 Issue notice to the respondents on appropriate steps being taken by the petitioner, returnable for 10.7.2019. Meanwhile, the operation of the impugned order dated 11.3.2019 shall remain stayed. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master. R.K.GAUBA, J MAY 17, 2019 7. After passing the impugned confirmation order as well as passing of the order by the Hon ble High Court, the respondent has issued a letter dated 8th June, 2019, the contents of which are reproduced hereunder:- GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT MINISTRY OF FINANCE, CENTRAL REGION DELHI ZONAL OFFICE, MTNL BUILDING, 1ST FLR, J.L. NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI-110002 F.No. ECIR/12/DLZO/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 249 Beneficiary A/c No. : 352402010906377 Beneficiary A/c Holder : Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement (PMLA) Name of the Bank : Union Bank of India, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi 4. An intimation to this effect may also be sent to the undersigned. Encls: As above Sd/- (Yogeshwar Sharma) Deputy Director 8. The factum of de-freezing the mutual funds by the Special Court as well as passing the stay order passed by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi has not been mentioned by the respondent in its letter. 9. Thereafter, on 11th June,2019, on the basis of direction issued by ED, a letter has been issued by Reliance Nippon Life Asset Management Ltd. and the same is reproduced below:- Ref: RMF/June/2019/SR 58900156 June 11, 2019 RELIANCE NIPPON LIFE ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD Nippon L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rule-4 of PMLA, as the trial is yet to be conducted. It is stated by him that the respondent has not waited the decision of the High Court in the appeal filed by the CBI. It is done by the respondent in order to redundant the order of Special Court which is sub-judice before the High Court. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent states that the respondent is entitled to encash the mutual funds once the confirmation order has been passed without waiting the result of appeal. However, it is not denied by him that in the charge-sheet filed by the CBI in FIR being RC No. 217 2013 A 003, they are not named. 13. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act taking possession of attached or frozen properties confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority Rules 2013, in particular, Rule 4(4) specifically provides that Where the attached property confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority is in the form of shares, debentures, units of mutual fund or instruments, the authorized officer shall cause to get such shares, debentures, units of Mutual Fund or instruments to be transferred in favour of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch of the said rule, the Appellate Tribunal has a power to interfere with. 20. The Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Kanhaiyalal V. Dr. D.R. banaji and others [1959 SCR 333] has held as under:- it is settled law that proceedings taken in respect of a property which is in the possession and management of the Receiver appointed by Court under Order 40, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure without leave of that court are illegal in the sense that the party proceeding against the property without the leave of the Court concerned, is liable to be committed for contempt of the Court, and that the proceedings so held do not affect the interest in the hands of the Receiver who holds the property for the benefit of the party who, ultimately, may be adjudged by the Court to be entitled to the same. 21. As far as merit of the case is concerned, I do not wish to express any opinion at this stage. However, prima facie, it appears that the IO in the matter has encashed the mutual funds at the premature stage which is contrary to rule and it would have been better if IO should have either approached to the High Court to bri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
