AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Mr Sumeet Singh, Mr Biswajit, Mr Indranil Ghosh, Advs. For the Respondents : Mr Navin Chawla, Adv. for R-1 & Mr Shamshuddin, Adv. for ED ORDER Mukta Gupta, J. 1. These writ petitions challenge a common impugned order dated 29th April, 2015 passed by the adjudicating authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short the PML Act) whereby it was held that the appellants have committed the Scheduled offence, generated 'proceeds of crime' and laundered them, thus the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) was confirmed and an order of confiscation was passed under sub-section (5) to sub-section (7) of Section 8 or Section 58B or sub-section (2A) of Section 60 of the PML Act. 2. A preliminary objection has been ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se promise of high returns in various schemes which were apparently was not possible leading to prima facie case that this is the prima facie case of schedule offence. 5. Various schemes were floated which were not permissible under the SEBI/RBI etc law and criminal cases have been filed. 6. Commissions of Rs. 378.89 crores have been paid to various agent for arranging funds in the scheme. ED will consider action against such persons also as per law under PMLA. 7. Money has flown to other persons also which will be examined by ED for appropriate action. 8. Ones under Section 8(1) has not been discharged. 9. Conditions of Section 5 & 8 have been complied with. 10. There is no requirement under law to convey the reasons recorded to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en attached under Section 5 is involved in Money Laundering. The defendant are in possession of "Proceeds of Crime" within the meaning of provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and accordingly it is ordered that the attachment of the property shall continue during the pendency of the proceedings relating to any offence under this Act before a court or under corresponding law of any other country, before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction outside India, as the case may be; and become final after an order of confiscation is passed under sub-section (5) to sub-section (7) of Section 8 or section 58B or sub-section (2A) of section 60. 21. The Provisional Attachment Order is confirmed accordingly. 22. Conclusion: On ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orically held that prima facie the schemes floated by the petitioners do not fall within the meaning of expression of 'Collective Investment Scheme (CIS)', thus the SEBI does not have the jurisdiction to take action in the affairs of the business of the petitioners. The interim order passed by the Guwahati High Court in W.P.(C) 4298/2013 has attained finality as the Special Leave Petition filed by the Union of India has since been dismissed by the Supreme Court. The second ground for coming to the conclusion of involvement in the offences under PML Act and receiving the proceeds of crime is the FIR in which the complainant is a Police Officer and not an individual. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Section 26 of the PML Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned order is without jurisdiction so as to warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover the view expressed by the Guwahati High Court that the case was not a case of Collective Investment Scheme in relation to the Time Share Scheme is a prima facie view and the Guwahati High Court did not express any definite opinion that it was wholly impermissible for SEBI to pass any restraint order under Regulation 65, pending an enquiry. The case of respondents is also based on the statements of the Chairman Gautam Kundu, Managing Director Shibamoy Dutta, Vice President (Finance) Amitabh Mukherjee, Pijus Kumar Das IT Head, Sudhir Shaw AGM (Accounts) and N.C. Pillai, Sr. General Manager (Admn.) of the Rose ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only to the High Court and thus it was held that the jurisdiction conferred on the Registrar under Section 56 of the TM Act was curtailed by Section 107 of the TM Act. The Supreme Court held that in view of the proceedings pending in the High Court and especially in view of the Section 107 of the TM Act the Registrar could not legally issue any suo-moto notice to the petitioners under Section 56(4) of the TM Act for cancellation of the certificate of registration/renewal already granted. 8. The three requirements as laid down in Whirlpool Corporation are not satisfied in the present case. Merely because there is a stay on proceedings against the SEBI by the Guwahati High Court which interim order has attained finality, it cannot be said t....