TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 1289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mercially exploited, M/s. IPRS took the responsibility of collecting the royalties and hand over the requisite share to him. However, M/s IPRS has failed to pay the royalties to him. It was also alleged in the complaint that he regularly demanded the said payments, but no satisfactory replies were received from the authorized persons of the said organization. Even his name was deleted unilaterally from the membership of M/s. IPRS with the intention not to pay the amount due to him. His apprehension is that M/s IPRS has collected the royalty amount for the literary work done by him and the same must have been spent for the benefit of unknown person(s). Therefore, he felt that he was cheated by the M/s IPRS. In the complaint, it is also stated that there may be so many members who have also been cheated in the similar manner. 3. In view of the compliant made by Shri Surendra Sathi for nonpayment of royalty due to him, S/Shri Hasan Kamal & Omprakash Sonik both directors of M/s. IPRS and others were charged under section 120B, 406, 420, 468, 471, 506 and 34 of the IPC, 1860 in the Sadar Police Station, Agra and a FIR 455/2014 dated 02.06.2014 was registered against Shri Hasan Kam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hain agreement dated 29.01.2008 with M/s. Select Media Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (M/s SMHPL) for issuance of license for a period of three years. By that agreement, M/s PPL granted rights to M/s SMHPL for issuance of sub-licence of the musical rights to TV broadcasters. The musical rights are inclusive of the rights pertained to sound track (members of PPL i.e. musical companies) and musical Literary works which belonged to the Author (lyricists), Composer (Music Directors). The agreement was executed for the period of three years upto 31.12.2010. (vi) Thereafter, by MOU dated 29.12.2010 between M/s SMHPL and M/s PPL, the agreement dated 29.01.2008 to sub-licence the musical rights to TV broadcasters was renewed for the period of 3 years, i.e. upto 31.12.2013. The musical rights which was inclusive of the rights pertained to sound track (PPL) and musical Literary works (IPRS) was renewed in toto, except for the changes in monetary consideration for a period of 3 years, i.e. 31.12.2013. (vii) In view of the agreement executed between M/s PPL and M/s SMHPL, M/s SMHPL paid to M/s PPL the following amount on account of royalty payable to the members of M/s PPL as well as M/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g PAO dated 02.06.2016, the Deputy Director filed a complaint dated 30.06.2016 under provisions of sub-section 5 of section 5 of the PMLA. The Adjudicating Authority pursuant to the filing of complaint entertained the requisite belief and ordered on 04.07.2016 issuance of notice to show cause dated 06.07.2016 which was served on the Defendants/respondents herein interalia directing them to appear before the authority on 22.08.2016 and show cause in terms of the Notice. The Defendants/respondent appeared in the matter from time to time on 22.08.2016, 28.09.2016, 20.10.2016 and 25.10.2016. 11. The hearing in the matter was concluded on 01.11.2016 and on 25.11.2016, the impugned order was passed whereby the O.C. was rejected by the detailed order which was challenged by the present appellant interalia on various grounds. 12. We have heard the appeal at the admission stage itself. The learned counsel for the parties addressed their submissions and the order was reserved. Before dealing with the case of the appellant, it is necessary to deal with the case of respondent which was pleaded before the Adjudicating Authority. 13. It appears from the pleading that the role of M/s Ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n behalf of M/s. IPRS from the MoU dated 02.01.2008) as part of Television show. The License Agreement with M/s. SMHPL was extended for a period of further three years (that is, from 1.1.2010 to 31.12.2013) vide MoU dated 29.12.2010 whereby no rights in respect of works owned by authors (as upheld by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court) were specifically granted. 16. The allegations made by Mr. Surinder Sathi were that he is a lyricist, who filed Complaint at PS Sadar, Agra, stating that he allegedly became a member of IPRS in 1994 and in due course, rights over 37 of his lyrical works want to IPRS. It is alleged that Surinder Sathi became entitled to receive Royalty from IPRS in lieu of the above assignments. He further claims to have indeed received some Royalty from IPRS earlier. The exact amount of Royalty due to Mr. Sathi has neither been specified by him anywhere in his complaint nor has the Police arrived at or computed any specific amount in its investigations, as is evidenced from the Charge-Sheet. 17. In nut-shell, the complaint made by Shri Surender Sathi is that he was not paid part royalty amount and his membership was wrongly cancelled once he demanded his remaining....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, Mr. Ahuja said that "the share of M/s. PPL and M/s. IPRS could be construed as 50% each and thereby in general the share of M/s. PPL and M/s. IPRS be construed as 50% each in the royalty/ license fee charged in totality from the TV Broadcasters" (Emphasis supplied) Based on such a statement, the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that out of the total sum of Rs. 39.31 crores paid by M/s. SMHPL to M/s. PPL, 50 % i.e. Rs. 19.66 crores was payable by M/s. PPL to M/s. IPRS. Rs. 13.04 crores out of that amount still remained unpaid and therefore, such amount was „proceeds of crime‟. SMHPL is not a party to the MoUs between IPRS and PPL and is not in a competent position to interpret or speculate on or interject conjectures into the same; this has been upheld by the finding of the AA in para 11 of its Order dated 27.11.2016. PPL has neither acquired nor detained any proceeds of crime from the scheduled offences; this has been upheld by the finding of the AA in para 12 of its Order dated 27.11.2016. 23. The statement of Mr. Suresh Srinivasan, COO of PPL was recorded on 25.06.2016 which is Annexure K in the relied upon documents before the AA. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s submitted by the Defendants that M/s PPL was incorporated in the year 1941, being a company without share capital. PPL is an association of its members who are owner of "sound recording works". The Membership is voluntary. PPL's members are only music labels and / or a few film producers. No composer or lyricist or author has ever a member of M/s PPL. M/s PPL has no privity of contract with any author. PPL has been regularly filing annual returns with the Government of India, disclosing the list of its members and demonstrating that its members are only music labels. The Government of India, Ministry of HRD in its reply dated 17.12.2013 under RTI as to which copyright society is entitled to collect royalty for communication to the public of musical and literary works as part of sound recording under the copyright Act 1957 as amended by the copyright (amendment) Act 2012 have replied that the PPL was entitled to collect royalty for communicating to the public of musical and literary works as part of sound recording under the Copyright Act 1957. There is no privity of contract between the said Surendra Singh Kalra @ Surendra Sathi and M/s PPL. The said Surendra Singh K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Enforcement Directorate. The initial burden to show that prima facie scheduled offence is committed and in relation thereto, there exists proceeds of crime and its quantum, emerging from the scheduled offence/s and criminal activities relating to the scheduled offence always rest with the Complainant i.e. Enforcement Directorate. Once that is shown, the burden is to prove that they are untainted shifts on the Defendants/ Accused. The proceeds of crime is defined as under "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country. Thus the essence of the definition of the proceeds of crime is property derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property. Thus in the absence of any direct allegation, implication and / or material to show that PPL has derived or obtained any property, directly or indirectly a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& ors V/s State of Punjab & ors., 2010 10 SCC 43; Narmada bachao Andolan V/s State of Madhya Pradesh & anr, 2011(SC) 1989; State of haryan V/s Mukesh Kr. & Ors, 2012 AIR (SC) 559 and Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. ltd. V/s State of UP & anr., 2012 AIR (SC) 573)" The defendants have pointed out that the amounts standing to their credit in the said two banks accounts, constitutes the receipt of license fees and from which the administrative expenses incurred and royalties are paid to its members. The relevant issue, as to what amount constitutes the proceed of crime whether in relation to the Complaint of Mr. Surendra Sathi or any other claimant/s, if an/ is also not depicted in this PAO and / or OC (including RUD). The RUD also encloses at page no. 64 a letter dated 14.05.2015 written by the IPRS to Mr. H.S Mandlekar Assistant Director of DOE, thereby enclosing Annexure A-l to A-8, thereto. A copy of the said letter consisting of 2 pages in annexed as aforesaid (at page 64 and 65 of RUD), but none of the Annexure accompanying the said letter, are filed in the compilation filed/ RUD filed, by the Enforcement Directorate before this Authority. Similarly by letter dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... party to the MOU/ agreement between M/s IPRS and M/s PPL for the period of 2008 January - December 2011. There are well drawn MOU's and agreements entered into between the parties i.e. IPRS and PPL. There are separate MOU's between PPL and SMHPL dated 29.01.2008 and dated 29.12.2010. The reading of said MOU/ Agreement between IPRS and PPL does not show understanding with regard to sharing as stated by Mr. Nitin Ahuja. Mr. Nitin Ahuja, who is a director of M/s SMHPL, who have entered into separate MOU‟s with PPL concerning their activities, had no basis available with him to speculate and furnishing guess work calculation that the share of M/s PPL and M/s IPRS could be construed as 50% each in the royalty/ license fee charged in totality from the TV broadcasters. M/s S MHPL has also failed to furnish the data concerning the actual broadcast; but no such statement was furnished by SMHPL citing the reason that it was practically impossible for broadcaster to maintain such record. In view of the aforesaid factual position it would not be correct to rely upon the statement of Mr. Nitin Ahuja to interpret the percentage regarding the sharing of royalty. The said statements....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trite law that whenever a statute provides for "reason to believe" either the reasons should, appear on the face of the notice or they must be available on the materials which had been placed before the Authority. The contention that the show cause notice issued under section 8(1) is without disclosure of any elaborate reasons, is also of no substance. The reasonable belief as required under the Act is formed by Adjudicating Authority before ordering issuance of the notice to show cause. Notice to show cause is issued in terms of the Adjudicating Authority (Regulation) 2013. It will not be a out of place to mention that in terms of section 6(15), the Adjudicating Authority is not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 and that the Adjudicating Authority shall have powers to regulate its own procedure. The Notice to show cause as issued cannot be therefore faulted with. FREEZING OF BANK ACCOUNT 30. The contention of the Defendants that there was a freezing of the bank accounts ordered by the Enforcement Directorate is erroneous. There is no order of freezing produced or brought on record nor is the same indicated. The relevan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an be said to have been projected/ claimed as untainted. Proceeds of crime is defined in section 2(u) of PMLA, which would include any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly by, any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property. IPRS and its directors are the accused persons in relation to the scheduled offences. Properties of IPRS to the extent of over Rs. 70 crores have been provisionally attached, which PAO is confirmed. It is alleged that the said Surendra Sathi has authored only 37 songs since the year 1994 and was paid the due amount till the 2000 by IPRS. The allegations taking as they are is in respect of non-payment of royalty to the said Surendra Sathi. With regard to his claim also no material is gathered to shown as to what amount of royalty was due to him. Similarly though there are allegations that amounts were also due to other artists/ claimants, not a single claimant is show to have been aggrieved by any such alleged non-payment. There is nothing to show that any specific amount of royalty remained unpaid to the aggrieved artists/claimants. In such a situation and in view of the fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Defendants to the notice issued under sub-section 1 of Section 8 and the rejoinder of the Complainant as well written submissions of the Defendants. I have heard the Defendants through their Counsel and also the Counsel for the Enforcement Directorate/Complainant. Taking into account the said replies, rejoinder and written submission, arguments and all the relevant materials placed on record before me, I find that the property provisionally attached, movable property at page no. 10 of PAO, i.e. Rs. 12,09,61,770 lying in the Account no. 00000054000110353 (current) with State Bank of Mysore Lokhandwala, Mumbai and amount of Rs. 94,38,230 in the account no. 0343912005 with Citibak Mumbai, aggregating to Rs. 13,04,00,000/- are not involved in money laundering. Hence the Provisional Attachment Order dated 02.06.2016 made under sub-section (1) of section 5, for the aforesaid movable property is not confirmed." 27. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 3 of PMLA i.e. „criminal activity‟ and „proceeds of crime‟ resulting from such criminal activity, have not even been attempted to be established by the Directorate in the present case. Section 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of amendment, the IPRS addresses letter dated 29.08.2005 to Mr. Surendra Sathi, in order to undertake verification of the register of owners in furtherance of the Rule 14I of the Copyright Rules, for verification and attestation of the Agreements entered into between Mr. Sathi and IPRS in order to remove ownership issues. Copy of letter is already placed on record at page no. 655. Despite of the said letter Mr. Surrender Sathi did not respond. 7. On 9.11.2009 IPRS sent another letter to Surender Sathi to sign Assignment deeds for continuance of membership. Vide the said letter, IPRS clearly conveys that if there is no response from Mr. Sathi in seven days, his membership with IPRS would stand cancelled. The contents of the said letter is re-produced hereunder:- "The India Performing Right Society Limited Regd Office: 208, Golden chambers, 2nd Floor, New Andher Link Road, Andhari (W), Mumbai -400053 Tel: (022) 26733748/49/50/6616, Fax : (022) 2673 6658 Fax No. (022) 2673 6658 E-mail [email protected] Visit us at : www.iprs. Org. Ref: IPRS:RK:PK: 1118:2009 9th November, 2019 SURENDER S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court NO.-29 Case :- Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14342 of 2014 Petitioner:- Hasan Kamal Respondent :- State of U.P. and 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner:- Manu Khare Counsel for the Respondent:- Govt. Advocate, Manish Tiwari Hon‟ble V.K. Shukla J. Hon‟ble Shashi Kant,J. Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2. Sri S.M.A. Qazmi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manish Tiwari has entered appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 3. Each one of the respondent is accorded six weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may also be filed within two weeks thereafter. List after eight weeks. It has been sought to be contended that in the case in hand criminal forum is being misused and his submission is that in case any royalty is due to be paid to opposite party no. 3, he should pursue the civil forum which is available to him and invoking of criminal forum, in the facts of the case, cannot be said to be justifiable. Petitioner submits that as far as membership of the petitioner in the institution is concerned, the same has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his stay subsists still in. The operative copy of the order is re-produced hereunder:- Court no. 49 Case no:- Application u/s 482 no. 22187 of 2015 Applicant :- Hasan Kamal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. & 2 others Counsel for applicant :- Manu Khare, A.K.Awasthi, Prazan Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party:- Govt. Advocate, Manish Tiwary With Case no:- Application u/s 482 no. 22189 of 2015 Applicant :- Om Prakash Sonik Opposite Party :- State of U.P. & 2 others Counsel for applicant :- Manu Khare, A.K.Awasthi, Prazan Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party:- Govt. Advocate, Manish Tiwary With Case no:- Application u/s 482 no. 22189 of 2015 Applicant :- Rakesh Radheyshyam Nigam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. & 2 others Counsel for applicant :- Manu Khare, A.K.Awasthi, Prazan Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party:- Govt. Advocate, Manish Tiwary Hon‟ble Pankaj Naqvi. J. Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel, assited by Sri Manu Khare/Sri Pragyan Sharma, for the applicants in all the three connected applications, Sri Imran Ibra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 532 of 2015 (OC) on 18.11.2015 against the Appellants under section 5(5) of the PMLA Act on the basis of the FIR 455 of 2014. 18. The Adjudicating Authority issued showcause notice to the appellant on 23.11.2015 to disclose the source of income or earning of the property attached vide the PAO and show cause as to why the said properties should not be declared to be properties involved in money laundering under the PMLA. 19. That the Appellant filed its reply to the OC, taking inter alia the following objections: i. The Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad stayed the arrest of Om Prakash Sonik, Hasan Kamal and Rakesh Nigam till a report under section 173 of the CrPC is submitted vide order dated 25.08.2014 and 22.09.2014 in CrlMsc. 16675 of 2014. ii. The present case was tried before the Hon‟ble Adjudicating Authority despite the fact that the FIR was registered in Agra and hence the Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai Zonal Office had no territorial jurisdiction. iii. There is no specific royalty mentioned at any place in the whole body of the FIR made by Surender Sathi. iv. Even assuming that Mr. Surender ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A, 2002 had revealed that in the Balance Sheet of IPRS for the financial year 2013-14 under the category „Royalty to members (Current Liability)‟ had specified the amount of Rs. 85.82 crore. Also in the Balance Sheet for the year 2013-14 of IPRS the amount invested by them in the Current and Non-current Investment were specified. Further IPRS had not submitted the memberwise breakup of the amount ofRs. 85.82 crore which was reflected in the Balance Sheet for the Financial Year 2013-14 under the category of „Current Liabilities‟ and under the head „Royalties to Members‟ which was not submitted by them either during the course of the investigations or during the proceedings of the Adjudication of the subject PAO. 21.1. IPRS had not specified the reasons for retaining the royalty with them together with the non-mentioning of the source of the funds for the „Investment in the current and noncurrent investment‟ in the balance sheet/directors report. Thus it appears that IPRS had projected the investments in „current and non-current asset‟ as untainted. 21.2. The appellant though had accepted that they had reta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Investment 1. Birla Sun Life Asset Management Company Ltd. 1014364096 15000000 1014364097 186687013 Total 20,16,87,013 2. Franklin Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. 7029903807626 20000000 4009903807626 48500000 1049903807626 57500000 Total 12,60,00,000 3. HDFC Asset Management Company Ltd. 103546/53 3,00,00,000 4. ICICI Prudential Asset Management Company Ltd. 6073554/12 146013469 5597091/09 19927212 5815691/26 10072789 Total 17,60,13,470 5. Kotak Mahindra Mutual Fund 1386414/21 7500000 1386415/18 25000000 Total 3,25,00,000 6. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd. 49040703976 43000000 404136109594 40000000 TOTAL 8,30,00,000 7. IDFC Asset Management Company Limited. 33569/76 5,25,00,000 Total 70,17,00,483 26. The Adjudicating Authority has issue Notice to show cause dated 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of time and even though members of IPRS had demanded their requisite share of royalty, IPRS failed to pay the requisite share to their members. This was resulted in heating to its member by IPRs and therefore was charged under section 120-B, 406, 420, 468, 471, 506 and 34 of the IPC. 28. In Para -6.1 to 6.3 of the reply to PAO; the same are read as under:- "6.1 During the scrutiny of documents in 2009 it was noticed that numerous members including Mr. Sathi had not executed the assignment deed as passed by the Governing Council, the members requested to sign the assignment deed within seven days of receipt of the letter else the membership would stand terminated. 6.2 Having not heard from him, the membership of Mr. Sathi was treated as terminated including other members who did not revert and no correspondence was received from him by IPRS and no royalty was paid post such termination as Mr. Sathi was no longer a member of IPRS. 6.3 The complaint of Mr. Sathi is at best civil in nature as he is not the owner of the songs written by him as per 1977 Supreme Court Judgment nor has he claimed ownership. So at best he can claim for royalty post 2012 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ution on an average throughout the world is around 24 months of revenue. In one of the Radio litigation matter, as directed by the Court, the Defendant No. 1 had to refund the entire Licensing fees/Royalties to the tune of Rs. 2,44,36,944 in compliance of the order dated 25th April, 2013 passed by the Delhi High Court in the IPRS Vs. Mr. S. Keerthivasan & Anr. (HT Media). The Defendant craves leave to refer to the said order dated 25th April, 2013 passed by the Delhi High Court during the course of personal hearing. Hence keeping in mind the above refund litigation and major other litigations that the Defendant No. 1 had with FM Broadcaster, the Governing Committee Meetings in 2011 approved as under: „Keeping in mind the investments and disbursements, that the Company shall disburse royalties keeping aside an amount of Rs. 32 crores as buffer for claims towards refund of royalties paid earlier to the Company.‟ The same was also duly reflected by Defendant No. 1 in its Annual Report of 2013-14 in Note 21 - Contingent Liabilities. Hence the royalty distribution got slowed down to take care of such contingency of refund. The Defendant No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue bouncing cases, nearly all of which involve section 420 IPC, have they registered an ECIR. There is no whisper in the FIR or the ECIR as to which documents has been forged. Even as regards cheating, the only allegation is qua Mr. Sathi whose alleged dues have not been quantified. At best, the dues of Mr. Sathi would be around Rs. 47,000/-. 41. The order of provisional attachment would indicate that without any supporting evidence, the Respondent concluded Appellants were in possession of „Proceeds of crime‟ and attached amounts of Rs. 70,17,00,483/- alleging that the same were obtained from commission of the scheduled offences, without providing any determination or calculation for the same. The Adjudicating Authority further failed to observe that the appellant has been following international standards and norms of collection and distribution of royalty and the pending distributions could in no manner be construed as cheating. 42. The Respondent have failed to consider and appreciate the legal position concerning ownership of copyright in musical and literary works prior to the amendment of the Copyright Act, 1957 as detailed bel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re that author /composer members received 50% royalties on the strength of their membership with IPRS. This 1993 MOU also ensured that the Author/Composer members also got representation on the Governing Council of IPRS though the entire control of IPRS was exercised by owner members. vi. That dispute began to form between the music publisher companies and authors, wherein the music companies where facing claims as to ownership of musical and literary works from authors and composers. As admittedly, the Appellant is a society representing the interests of the authors, composers and music production companies. vii. In light of the dispute around ownership, the Board of UPRs tool a decision in its GC meeting held on 8th August, 2005 to sent letters to members calling them upon a provide documents establishing their ownership of copyrights in musical and literary works created/owned by them. However, none of the author/composer members did submit such documents establishing or claiming ownership of copyrights. viii. As a result of this, the Board of IPRS took a decision in its GC meeting dated 27th March, 2008 that IPRS as a Copyright Society should not viol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent has not explained the attachment of the aforesaid amounts in its complaint, hence there was no basis or reason to believe for attaching the amounts mentioned vide the PAO and Impugned Order. 47. During the course of hearing, as Mr. Nitesh Rana, learned counsel has disputed the issue of disbursement of Royalties to the artists, an affidavit of Shri Rakesh Nigam, Chief Executive Officer, M/s Indian Performing Right Society Ltd., Mumbai, Indian, aged 52 yrs., having office at 208, Golden chambers, 2nd floor, New Andheri Link Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053 was filed with an advance copy to Mr. Nitesh Rana. In the said affidavit, it was disclosed that as on 31.03.2017, the status of the royalty of Rs. 85,82,29,782/- which was pending distribution as on 31.03.2014, is as under: "i) Total royalty pending distribution as on 31.03.2014 : Rs. 85,82,29,782/- ii) Distributed out of (i) above a. In F.Y. 2014-2015 : Rs. 46,87,99,952/- b. In F.Y. 2015-2015 : Rs. 3,19,02,952/- c. In F.Y. 2016-2017 : Rs. 3,00,99,329/- iii) Cheques issued, not presented for payment by Members: a. As on 31.13.2014 : 1,18,00,000/- b. (Less)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aint, F.I.R. No. 167 dated 26th October, 2016 was registered at PS: EOW ("F.I.R." and the same is currently pending investigation. In view of IPRS addressing the concerns of authors and composers to their satisfaction and in their welfare, I have issued the present letter for withdrawing the F.I.R. Some of the prominent steps undertaken by IPRS for the welfare of the Author/ Music Composer Community are enumerated as under: 1. IPRS's Board has approved amendments to its Articles of Association to bring them in line with the Copyright Act 1957 as amended in 2012 and the Copyright Rules, 2013, a copy of which approved by the Authors and Composers, has been made available to me; 2. All current Music Company Owner Publisher Members of IPRS have withdrawn all the Cases against IPRS including those against any author/ composer members in reference to complaints against IPRS; 3. IPRS has held a proper AGM and after causing necessary amendments in the Articles of Association in the AGM; 4. IPRS has also conducted an extraordinary general body meeting was held to conduct free & fair elections to the entire Governing Council / Board by virtue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled in the said F.I.R. In view of IPRS addressing the concerns of authors and composers to their satisfaction and in their welfare, I have issued the present letter for withdrawing the F.I.R. Some of the prominent steps undertaken by IPRS for the welfare of the Author/Music Composer Community are enumerated as under: 1. IPRS‟s Board has approved amendments to its Articles of Association to bring them in line with the Copyright Act 1957 as amended in 2012 and the Copyright Rules, 2013, a copy Total royalty pending members. Accordingly, I hereby agree to extend necessary support for Quashing of the F.I.R. No. 455 of 2014 by signing the documents required as per law. I have signed the present letter out of my own freewill and without any force, coercion or threat. Yours Sincerely, Surendra Saathi Complainant and First Informant Cc: Investigating Officer, PS: Sadar Bazar, Agra 50. In the present case, the appellant has admitted that in its letter dated 9.11.2015, the appellant herein had inter alia made the submission with regard to the provisional Attachment order no. 20 of 2015 dated 20-10-2015 as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rds and refuse to entertain the complaint on such PAO without a Scheduled Offence. We Shall be ready to tender any clarification and documents to prevent injustice to us" 51. The said submissions of the appellant were disregarded to the principles of natural justice as without any reference in respect of receipt of the above said letter dated 9.11.2015, the Adjudicating Authority issued the notice to Show Cause dated 23.11.2015 to the appellant. 61. The Adjudicating Authority did not mention any reason as to why while passing the impugned order dated 23.03.2016, selective approach was adopted in considering and discussing the grounds submitted by the appellant in its written reply dated 11.01.2016 and on what basis the 14 ground. The said biased approach has caused severe prejudice and resulted in miscarriage of justice. 62. The Adjudicating Authority despite submissions of documentary evidence by the appellant that the respondent had misrepresented the facts and had distorted the same in the Original Complaint for prejudicing the mind of the Adj. Authority accepted the same distorted version as the "Facts & circumstance of the case" in the impug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y aspect of the case. Most of the facts are common in the present case as well as appeal no. FPA-PMLA-1302/MUM/2016. 32. It is also matter of fact that before „cancellation of membership of the complainant, proper notice was served. The said cancellation has not been challenged by the complainant. His contentions that other artists have not been paid royalty cannot be the subject of PMLA proceedings. The said alleged offences are allegedly committed during the said period. 33. Further, as noted during the proceedings in respect of appeal no. FPA-PMLA-1302/MUM/2016 in the case of IPRS-refer 49 of this Tribunal‟s order dated 22.06.2016 in the said case which is produced in para 30 above, (internal page no. 39-40 of this order refers), he (i.e. Surendra Sathi) is now agreeable to extend support to quash the FIR filed consequent to his complaint. 34. Even in the absence of the vital missing links between the alleged crime and the amount in possession of the Respondents, the Complainant proceeded to issue the Provisional Attachment Order contrary to the statutory mandate. The said order suffered from many infirmities as the money sought to be attached have been gene....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisional attachment order. If in a particular case, as is the situation in the present matter, the very basis of the respondent‟s case that the property attached is proceeds of crime or that involved in money laundering is found to be unsustainable, no fault can be found with the subject decision of the adjudicating authority not to confirm the adjudication order 40. We may add that it is settled law that the allegations in the FIR and the Charge-Sheet have to be specific, clearly stating the role of the accused persons. However, in the present case, there has been no allegation whatsoever against the Respondents in the FIR or the Charge-Sheet. In Hira Lal Bhagwati V. CBI, New Delhi (2003) 5 SCC 257, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in respect of the essence of specific allegations in the FIR and Charge Sheet has held as under: "It is settled law, by a catena of decisions, that for establishing the offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise of representation. From his making failure to keep promise subsequently, such a culpable intention right at the beginning t....