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>Court orders return of Rs. 25 lac deposit seized under Money Laundering Act</h1> <h3>Satish Estate Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India</h3> Satish Estate Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India - 2017 (353) E.L.T. 21 (P & H) Issues:Petitioner seeking return of fixed deposit attached under Prevention of Money Laundering Act; Dispute involving petitioner, Thapar Infrastructure Limited (TI Limited), and Chandana Developers Private Limited (CDP Limited); Attachment of funds by Directorate of Enforcement; Allegations under Prevention of Money Laundering Act; Jurisdiction under Article 226 challenged.Analysis:The petitioner sought the return of a fixed deposit of Rs. 25 lacs attached by the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The dispute involved the petitioner, TI Limited, and CDP Limited. The petitioner, owning a piece of land, had a transaction with TI Limited which ended with the dismissal of a suit in 2008, resulting in the forfeiture of the earnest money. Meanwhile, TI Limited had a separate agreement with CDP Limited for a different property, leading to disputes and an FIR. The Enforcement Directorate initiated proceedings against TI Limited and CDP Limited under the Act, but the petitioner was not a party to those cases.The respondents issued a provisional attachment order in 2014, but it did not implicate the petitioner in any illegal transactions related to TI Limited. The complaint filed under the Act did not contain allegations against the petitioner, confirming the provisional attachment order. The court noted that there was no evidence linking the Rs. 25 lacs received by the petitioner to any proceeds of crime derived by TI Limited from CDP Limited. The petitioner's director deposited the amount with the respondents, leading to a legal predicament for the petitioner due to procedural issues.The court found discrepancies in the proceedings initiated against the director instead of the company, leading to doubts about the maintainability of the actions. Despite the dismissal of the director's appeal and the company's application for impleadment, the court allowed the petition, ordering the return of the fixed deposit. The judgment emphasized that if any evidence linking the funds to criminal proceeds is found, the respondents are free to take necessary action. The court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226, highlighting the lack of connection between the attached funds and the alleged proceeds of crime.
TaxTMI 