Tribunal adjourns case, awaits Supreme Court decision on appeals related to Provisional Attachment Order.

The Appellate Tribunal adjourned the case to await the Supreme Court's decision, refraining from expressing any opinion on the case's merits or the parties' submissions. The Tribunal decided to await the Supreme Court's decision before passing any order on the appeals related to confirmation of Provisional Attachment Order, allegations of quid pro quo and illegal gratification, validity of investments, double attachment of properties, and applicability of penal provisions under PMLA.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of Provisional Attachment Order (PAO)
2. Allegations of quid pro quo and illegal gratification
3. Validity and genuineness of investments
4. Double attachment of properties
5. Applicability of penal provisions under PMLA
6. Pending Supreme Court decision

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Provisional Attachment Order (PAO):
The appeals were filed against the order dated 04.08.2015 by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the attachments made vide Provisional Attachment Order No. 04/2015 dated 25.02.2015. The attachments were related to various properties and shares worth Rs. 232,27,55,806/- in connection with ECIR/09/HZO/2011 and CC No. 24 of 2013 before the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

2. Allegations of Quid Pro Quo and Illegal Gratification:
Shri N. Srinivasan, Managing Director of M/s. The India Cements Limited, was alleged to have invested Rs. 140,32,63,855/- in the group companies of Shri Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy in exchange for undue favors from the Government of Andhra Pradesh. These favors included allocation of additional water, extension of land lease, and priority in cement supply under the 'Indiramma Scheme'. The investments were purportedly made to solicit bribes in the form of equity participation.

3. Validity and Genuineness of Investments:
The appellants argued that the investments made into M/s Bharati Cements Corporation Pvt. Ltd., M/s Jagati Publications Ltd, and M/s Carmel Asia Holdings Pvt Ltd were genuine and made in the course of bona fide commercial transactions. They contended that the allegations of undervaluation, overvaluation, and ante-dating of valuation reports were baseless. The premium for the shares was justified based on sound commercial analysis and market conditions.

4. Double Attachment of Properties:
The appellants contended that the attachment of properties constituted double attachment. For instance, the amount of Rs. 95,32,63,855/- invested by India Cements in Bharathi Cements was also held to be 'proceeds of crime' and attached, despite the sale proceeds of Rs. 121,08,26,678/- arising out of shares of Bharathi Cement by India Cements Limited to PARFICIM being held as proceeds of crime and attached separately.

5. Applicability of Penal Provisions under PMLA:
The appellants submitted that the penal provisions alleged in the charge sheet were not included in the Schedule to the PMLA during the relevant time. These provisions were included only by way of amendment to PMLA vide Act No. 21 of 2009 w.e.f. 01.06.2009. Thus, no "scheduled offence" was committed, and no 'proceeds of crime' were generated for the purposes of PMLA.

6. Pending Supreme Court Decision:
The Hon'ble High Court of Hyderabad had quashed the proceedings against the petitioner/A3-Sri N. Srinivasan in CC No. 24 of 2013. The CBI challenged this judgment by filing a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7621/2016 in the Supreme Court of India, which was still pending. The Appellate Tribunal decided to await the Supreme Court's decision before passing an appropriate order on the appeals.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal decided to adjourn the matters to 09.07.2018, awaiting the decision of the Apex Court. The Tribunal refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the rival submissions of the parties, pending the Supreme Court's judgment.

---