2017 (8) TMI 753

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(PAO) No. 1/2014 arising out of ECIR/07/B2/2011. 2. The appellant has prayed for the following reliefs in his appeal memo:- (a) Quash the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 24/02/2014 in Original Complaint No. 263/2014, ordering issuance of notice to the Appellant without assigning any reason; AND (b) Set aside the show cause notice dt: 24/02/2014 issued by the Adjudicating Authority; AND (c) Set aside the order passed in original Complaint No. 263/2014, dated 31/07/2014 confirming the Provisional Order of attachment bearing No. 1/2014 in ECIR/07/BZ/2011 passed by the Joint Director of Directorate of Enforcement, the Respondent; AND (d) Order for refund of Rs. 70 lakh taken by the Respondent from the account of the Appellant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2007 through an over draft account. The said company of appellant repaid a sum of Rs. 70 lakh to the appellant on 01.08.2007 which was transferred to her Federal Bank account on 02.08.2007 (iv) That, at a later date the appellant returned the amount of Rs. 70 lakh, borrowed from Sri K.S. Naidu, by depositing the said amount in favour of M/s G.V. Infrastructure as per the instruction of Sri K.S. Naidu. (v) That, the Appellant was summoned by the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate and her statement was recorded under section 50 of the PMLA Act, 2002. Thereafter, provisional attachment order was passed on 24.01.2014 under section 5(1) of PMLA. (vi) That, in the appeal memo, the appellant has described the facts stated by the compla....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nstitution and the principal of natural justice. (ii) That, this case does not come within the schedule offence in regard to section 2(y)(ii) of the said Act. (iii) That, PAO does not satisfy the requirements of section 5(1) of the said Act. (iv) That, Rs. 70 lakh has been received from clear and legitimate source and not from Rs. 85,28,63,700 crore allegedly classified as proceeds of crime and as defined under section 2(Y) of the said Act. (v) That, the appellant is not an accused in special case no. 135/2011 filed before the special judge by the police wing of Karnataka Lokayuktha. (vi) That, the Adjudicating Authority has not given any reasons as to how it arrived at the conclusion that Rs. 70 lakhs has not come from clean and legit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urce and has come from the alleged proceed of Rs. 85,28,63,700 crores and has failed to appreciate the fact that Sh. B.L. Venkataiah @ Venkaiah in his statement dated 09.06.2014 has stated that Rs. 70 lakhs went to the appellant from Rs. 104,18,55,950 crores in the account of M/s Indu Builders. 8. We have gone through the findings and conclusion of the Adjudicating Authority available at internal page 14 to 17 of the impugned order. It is not discussed as to which of the documents supports the finding of the Adjudicating Authority that Rs. 70 lakhs was out of Rs. 85,28,68,700/- crores and not out of the 19 crores which is claimed as the legitimate money in the account of M/s Indu Builders. 9. Since the defendant /appellant has been consis....