TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court overturns bail, orders surrender for accused in money laundering case.</h1> <h3>BHUPINDER SINGH Versus UNITECH LTD.</h3> BHUPINDER SINGH Versus UNITECH LTD. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the bail granted by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.2. Compliance with the Supreme Court's order regarding the deposit of Rs. 750 crores.3. Allegations of money laundering and siphoning of funds by the accused.4. Judicial discipline and overreach of jurisdiction by the lower courts.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Bail Granted by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate:The Supreme Court addressed the bail granted by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, on 13 January 2021, to the accused. The Court found the manner in which the accused were granted liberty by the Delhi High Court to move the Metropolitan Magistrate for bail and the subsequent order of the Magistrate as a 'shocking exercise of judicial power and a breach of judicial discipline.' The Supreme Court emphasized that the accused's conduct in moving an application for withdrawal before the Delhi High Court and seeking regular bail before the Metropolitan Magistrate was an overreach of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.2. Compliance with the Supreme Court's Order Regarding the Deposit of Rs. 750 Crores:The Supreme Court's order dated 30 October 2017, required the accused to deposit Rs. 750 crores in the Registry of the Court by 31 December 2017 as a condition for bail. The accused argued that they had complied with this condition. However, the Supreme Court found that the deposit was not made by the accused but was realized through the monetization of the assets of Unitech Limited under the auspices of the Justice Dhingra Committee. The Court noted that neither of the conditions for deposit had been complied with by the accused, as the amount deposited was not by the accused themselves but through the monetization process.3. Allegations of Money Laundering and Siphoning of Funds by the Accused:The Supreme Court highlighted the findings of a forensic audit conducted by M/s Grant Thornton, which indicated serious allegations of money laundering and siphoning of funds to offshore locations by the erstwhile management of Unitech Limited. The Court noted that these funds were the moneys paid by the home buyers. The forensic report warranted an investigation into these serious allegations, and the Court had issued directions for the management of Unitech Limited to be taken over by a Board constituted by the Union of India.4. Judicial Discipline and Overreach of Jurisdiction by the Lower Courts:The Supreme Court found that the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate granting bail was a deviation from the findings specifically recorded in the Supreme Court's order dated 30 October 2017. The Court observed that the accused's actions in seeking bail from the lower courts during the pendency of the proceedings before the Supreme Court were an attempt to overreach the process of the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that such actions were unacceptable and constituted a breach of judicial discipline.Conclusion:The Supreme Court issued notice to the accused, directing them to surrender to Tihar Jail by 22 March 2021. The order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 13 January 2021 was stayed pending further orders. The Court scheduled the next hearing for 7 April 2021.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
