Appeals Allowed, Attachment Orders Quashed, Refunds Ordered.

The appeals filed by the Appellant Company (SPCL) are allowed, setting aside the orders under appeal. The provisional attachment orders are quashed, releasing all attached properties. The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) is directed to refund the detained amount with accrued interest to SPCL. Appeals by SRB Developers and Kalyani Groups are also allowed, with refunds to be made by the ED. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of funds transferred by SPCL to Nilesh Thakur.
2. Whether the properties acquired by Nilesh Thakur using SPCL funds are "proceeds of crime."
3. Validity of the Consent Decree passed by the Bombay High Court.
4. Applicability of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to the transactions.
5. Impact of Income Tax Tribunal (ITAT) orders on the PMLA proceedings.
6. Validity of Provisional Attachment Orders (PAOs) issued by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of Funds Transferred by SPCL to Nilesh Thakur:
The Appellant Company (SPCL) transferred Rs. 141.50 crores to Nilesh Thakur Group between 2007-2009 under a legitimate land aggregation agreement. The funds were from SPCL's legitimate business activities and not proceeds of crime. This fact is uncontested by the respondents, including the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).

2. Whether the Properties Acquired by Nilesh Thakur Using SPCL Funds are "Proceeds of Crime":
The properties acquired by Nilesh Thakur using SPCL's funds were for lawful purposes under the agreement. The funds used were not proceeds of crime, as admitted by the ED. The properties, vehicles, and fixed deposits acquired from these funds cannot be termed as money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

3. Validity of the Consent Decree Passed by the Bombay High Court:
The Bombay High Court passed a Consent Decree on 19.10.2011, confirming that the properties and funds in question belonged to SPCL. The Consent Decree is legally binding and has the same effect as a decree passed in invitum. The ED's contention that the Consent Decree should not be considered was rejected.

4. Applicability of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to the Transactions:
The PMLA was amended to include offenses under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as scheduled offenses only from 1.6.2009. Therefore, the funds advanced by SPCL to Nilesh Thakur Group before this date (Rs. 111.50 crores) cannot be treated as proceeds of crime under the PMLA. The attachment of properties acquired before this date was beyond the jurisdiction of the authorities under the PMLA.

5. Impact of Income Tax Tribunal (ITAT) Orders on the PMLA Proceedings:
The ITAT, by its order dated 10.4.2015, confirmed that the funds advanced by SPCL to Nilesh Thakur were for business purposes. This order set aside the adverse observations of the Income Tax Officer, which were the basis for the ACB's charge sheet and the ED's reasonable belief for issuing Provisional Attachment Orders. The foundation of the ED's actions ceased to exist with the ITAT's order.

6. Validity of Provisional Attachment Orders (PAOs) Issued by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED):
The PAOs issued by the ED were based on the assumption that the properties were proceeds of crime. However, the funds provided by SPCL were legitimate, and the properties acquired were not proceeds of crime. The Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of the PAOs was incorrect and based on a flawed understanding of the facts and law. The Tribunal set aside the PAOs and ordered the release of the attached properties and funds.

Conclusion:
All appeals filed by SPCL are allowed, and the orders under appeal are set aside. The provisional attachment orders are quashed, and all attached properties, movable and immovable, are released forthwith. The ED is directed to refund the detained amount with accrued interest to SPCL. Appeals filed by SRB Developers and Kalyani Groups are also allowed, and the amounts deposited by them are to be refunded by the ED with accrued interest. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of, and no costs are awarded.

---