TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1065
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad (CBI Case). 2. Attachments effected in the entire O.C. 276 of 2014 totaling to Rs. 232,27,55,806/- * M/s Jagati Publications Ltd: Shares of M/s Indira Television Pvt Ltd valued at Rs. 10,20,00,000/- * M/s Carmel Asia Holdings Pvt Ltd.: Share application money purportedly pending with M/s Saraswat Power Pvt Ltd: Rs. 3,20,00,000/- and shares of M/s Indira Television Pvt Ltd valued at Rs. 25,00,000/- * M/s Janani Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.: Land and Buildings valued at Rs. 2,95,74,251/- * M/s India Cements Ltd.: Immovable Property valued at Rs. 3,34,82,000/- * M/s India Cements Ltd.: Movable Property valued at Rs. 116,99,35,700/- * M/s Bharathi Cements Corporation Pvt. Ltd: movable property valued at Rs. 95,32,63,855/- 3. The confirmation was challenged by the following parties on filing of following appeals: - * FPA-PMLA-1053/HYD/2015: M/s Jagati Publications Ltd. * FPA-PMLA-1054/HYD/2015: M/s Janani Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. * FPA-PMLA-1055/HYD/2016: M/s Carmel Asia Holdings Pvt Ltd. * FPA-PMLA-1045/HYD/2016: M/s Bharati Cement Corporation Pvt Ltd. * FPA-PMLA-1065/HYD/2016: M/s India Cements Ltd. 4. The facts of the case - as th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rea Development Department (CAD) and 13 million Cubic Feet of water from Kanga River vide GO Ms. No. 94 dated 12.08.2009 of Irrigation and Command Area Development Department (CAD) Department. iii) The brief facts of the case are that in the year 1999, Shri C. Ramachandran had got the registration certificate in the name of M/s. Raghuram Cements & Minerals Pvt. Ltd. from the registrar of Companies and the name M/s. Raghuram Cements Pvt. Ltd. was changed during the year 2005. Subsequently on 08.12.2005 M/s. Raghuram Cements Private Ltd. was changed as M/s. Raghuram Cements Limited and on 06.08.2008, M/s. Raghuram Cements Limited was changed as M/s. Bharathi Cement Corporation Limited. Lastly during the course of 2010 a French Multinational company M/s. Parficim had acquired 51% of the share- holding in M/s. Bharathi Cement Corporation Limited and the name of the company was changed to M/s. Bharathi Cement Corporation Private Limited. A perusal of Balance Sheet of Bharathi Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd. for the year 2006-07 till the period ending 31.12.2013 showed fixed deposit in various banks as under: Year ending Amount (Rs.) 31.03.2007 105,42,43,343 31.03.2008 43,72,43,5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....08 3,00,00,000 04.06.2008 3,00,00,000 18.07.2008 2,00,00,000 21.07.2008 2,00,00,000 23.07.2008 2,00,00,000 25.07.2008 2,00,00,000 27.01.2009 Bank of India, Mount Road, Chennai A/c 8000130110000007 10,00,00,000 29.01.2009 3,50,00,000 31.01.2009 7,50,00,000 12.01.2009 10,00,00,000 30.01.2009 SBH, Chennai A/c. No 52097613611 12,50,00,000 Total Amount 95,32,63,855 ii) Similarly, an amount of Rs. 40 Cr. was paid by M/s. India Cement Limted to M/s. Jagati Publication Ltd. on account of investment as equity participation as per details below: Date Bank Name Amount (Rs.) Beneficiary 08.08.2007 Centurion Bank (Now HDFC Bank), A/c No. 100605000000121 HDFC Bank, Begumpet, Hyderabad 00040310006816 (New) 3,00,00,000 M/s. Jagati Publication Pvt. Ltd. [A/c No. 1110109000026 Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad] 4,00,00,000 09.08.2007 3,00,00,000 10.08.2007 08.01.2008 3,00,00,000 11.01.2008 2,00,00,000 29.01....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia Holdings Pvt Ltd, into M/s Janani Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. and M/s Indira Television Pvt Ltd. are genuine investments made in course of bona fide commercial transactions and as on 30.09.2014, M/s Carmel Asia Holdings Pvt Ltd. invested a total amount of Rs. 11,54,87,968/- in M/s Janani Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. The said investment is already in ED's notice and has been accepted in PAO NO.4 of 2015 dated 15.12.2014. In fact, the Respondent already attached several properties as value of the investments made by M/s P.R. Energy Holdings Ltd. into M/s Carmel Asia Holdings Pvt Ltd.in PAO NO.4 of 2015 dated 15.12.2014. Therefore, attachment at the hands of M/s Janani Infrastructure Pvt Ltd constitutes double attachment. 8. The entirety of share application money (Rs.3,20,00,000/-) initially invested by M/s Carmel Asia Holdings Pvt Ltd into M/s Saraswati Power Pvt Ltd has been returned even before the impugned attachment. Therefore, the same is factually incorrect. 9. It is submitted by all the appellants that the penal provisions alleged in charge sheet were not included in the Schedule to the PMLA during the relevant time. They were included in the Schedule only by way of amendment to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rore; (ii) up till 31.03.2008 - Rs. 10 Crore; (iii) up till 31.03.2009 - Rs. 82,32,63,855 16. It is the case of Bharathi Cement that out of the total amount of Rs. 95,32,63,855/- lying in fixed deposits in Vijaya Bank, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, only a sum of Rs. 25 crores has been received from Oriental Bank of Commerce. The source of this 25 crores is operations of the company as the amount maintained in Vijaya Bank is funds maintained from the operations of the company and not from investment. Yet, the Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate, has attached the entire sum lying in Vijaya Bank. This attachment was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority observing as under: "Fixed Deposits held in the name of M/s. Bharathi Cement Corporation Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 95,32,63,855/- in VIJAYA BANK, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD, being the 'proceeds of crime' with M/s Bharathi Cement Corporation Limited". 17. It is alleged by Bharathi Cement that admittedly in Para 9.1 of the PAO that the amount in Vijaya Bank was Rs. 66 crores only. The other amount stated to be proceeds of crime was Rs. 29.32 crores in Axis Bank, which amount has not been attached Vijaya Bank Fixed Deposi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n held to be 'proceeds of crime' and has been attached, which constitutes double attachment. (iii) Reason to believe It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has failed to consider, firstly that the attachment was without legitimate "Reasons to Believe" and there is no nexus between the 'proceeds of crime' and property sought to be attached. [See Paresha G Shah v. State of Gujarat, 2016 GLH (1) 329 at Para 32-34] The Adjudicating Authority holds at page 114-115 of the impugned order that the OC/PAO disclose facts justifying a prima facie case and sufficiently convey what the Defendants have to meet. However, the Adjudicating Authority has not considered whether the parameters for "reasons to believe" under Section 5(1) have been adequately met. While in para 62 at page 115, the Adjudicating Authority had held that under Section 5 & 8 of the PMLA there is no requirement that reasons be conveyed to the Defendants. 20. It is also submitted that the Adjudicating Authority fails to note that Section 5(1)(a) & (b) are conjunctive and not disjunctive, being joined by "and" and therefore have to be read together. The conditions of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad so far as the petitioner/A3-Sri N. Srinivasan concerned are quashed for no basis to sustain. The bail bonds of the petitioner/A3-Sri N. Srinivasan if any shall stand cancelled. The miscellaneous petitions pending if any stand closed. The India Cements Ltd and their directors were the petitioners in the said matters. The instances of illegal gratification in the guise of investment as quid-pro-quo by India Cements Ltd. (A-7) into the companies of Sri Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy are detailed in para 2(ii) of the said Judgement. The allegations inter-alia against India Cements Ltd are referred in para of 2(ii) (j) of the Judgement which are re- produced here below: "(j) India Cements Limited (A-7) had invested 12,50,000 of preference shares at a premium of Rs. 110/- for a sum of Rs. 15,00,00,000/-. Thereafter India Cements Limited (A-7) had invested a sum of Rs. 80.31 crores at a premium of Rs. 1440/-. There was no explanation available in the minutes of the meeting or the statements recorded from the top management of the company with regard to the necessity to increase the premium from Rs. 110/- to Rs. 1440/- (sudden raise of almost 12 times within a small t....