TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the appellants could resist confirmation of provisional attachment on the strength of a civil court decree and execution proceedings when the attached property stood in the name of an entity not bound by that decree. (ii) Whether the property attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be treated as unconnected with the scheduled offence and outside the scope of "proceeds of crime".
Issue (i): Whether the appellants could resist confirmation of provisional attachment on the strength of a civil court decree and execution proceedings when the attached property stood in the name of an entity not bound by that decree.
Analysis: The decree relied upon by the appellants was found not to bind the company in whose name the property had already been conveyed, as that company was not a party to the suit and its registered sale deed had not been challenged by any separate cancellation proceedings. The Tribunal held that a declaration of title obtained in such circumstances could not override the prior transfer reflected in the revenue and registration records, and that the execution proceedings and collateral civil orders could not defeat the attachment when the property stood with the accused group company.
Conclusion: The contention based on the civil decree and execution proceedings was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the property attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be treated as unconnected with the scheduled offence and outside the scope of "proceeds of crime".
Analysis: The Tribunal held that the case disclosed a large-scale fraud involving multiple FIRs, investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and attachment of property found to have been acquired from the money collected from investors. Since the property was traced to the accused group and the appellants' claim failed to dislodge that chain, the attachment was treated as legally justified under the statutory scheme governing attachment and confirmation of property involved in money laundering.
Conclusion: The property was held to fall within the scope of attachment as proceeds of crime.
Final Conclusion: The impugned attachment and its confirmation were sustained, and the appeals did not succeed.
Ratio Decidendi: A civil decree that does not bind the person in title to the property, and is unsupported by cancellation of the prior registered conveyance, cannot defeat attachment under the money laundering where the property is otherwise traced to the accused as proceeds of crime.
TaxTMI 
