9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants. 2. The Ld. Counsel submits that appellant Shri Luv Bhardwaj was erstwhile Director of M/s Rangoli International Private Limited ( in short "RIPL")engaged in manufacturing and export of readymade garments. The company entered into an agreement with the consortium bank to obtain credit facilities. The credit facilities were withdrawn by the consortium bank due to search conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation ("CBI") in September, 2014 i.e. almost after four years of the credit facility. The company's account was declared to be Non-Performing Assets (NPA). The account was then declared fraud. An FIR was registered followed by ECIR, though RIPL challenged the order passed by the bank declaring accounts of the company to be fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 and therefore there was no reason to apprehend operation of the locker. The seizure memo of CBI dated 18.09.2014 was for gold jewellery etc. of 16.9 kg. and 3.4 kg. respectively. The gold was purchased in the year 2005-2006 from MMTC under invoice and in any case once lockers were under seizure of CBI there was no reason to seize those lockers by the respondent again. 5. The amount of Rs.5,62,000/- was also seized in ignorance of the fact that such amount remains available in the ordinary course with a citizen. Therefore,a challenge to the seized property has been made. It is with the further submission that even bank accounts were seized by the CBI and therefore there was no reason for the respondent to invoke seizure of those bank acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant was given. We find that if the lockers are already under seizure of CBI, it could not have been seized by the respondent by invoking Section 17(1) of the Prevention of Money- Laundering Act, 2002 ( in short "the Act of 2002"). In fact, it could have been when they apprehend concealment or tampering of the record or the property. The concealment could not have been when the lockers were already seized by the CBI. Thus, we do not find any justification on the part of the respondent to seize the locker no. 86 and 96 in the name of the appellant, Shri Luv Bhardwaj. 11. In the same manner, we do not find any justification to seize 3.2 kg gold found at the time of search. The appellant has given reference of the Circular issued by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso made for the reason that seized lockers cannot be seized again rather they can again be seized, if it is released by the CBI. The respondent would be at liberty to seize those lockers by taking an action afresh for which this order would not come thereby. 15. The lockers of Shri VivekPratap i.e. no. 236 and 327 have also seized though it was under seizure of CBI. Thus, for the reasons given in reference to other appellants, we cause interference in the seizure of the lockers. However, this order would not mean and effect the seizure of the lockers of the appellants by the CBI, rather, it is clarified that if any of the locker is released by the CBI, respondent would be at liberty to take action afresh to seize those lockers, if so requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
