TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and 474 of IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act by CBI, BS & FC New Delhi against Satish Kumar Goyal and others. Charge-Sheet dt. 07.03.2016 came to filed by CBI for the offences punishable under section 120 B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) and 13(1) (d) of PC Act against Bharat Bomb, Shankar Khadelwal, Vipul Kaushik, Santosh Kumar Gupta and Usha Gupta. Investigation against Satish Kumar, Sanjiv Kumar, Deshraj Meena, Adarsh Manchanda, Awadesh Tiwari, Piyush Jain and Vineet Jain is shown to be pending. ECIR dt. 11.07.2016 came to be registered by the Enforcement Director as the offences under section 120 B, 420, 467 and 471 of IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act are the scheduled offences. The Charge-Sheet reveals that without requisite KYC documentation, over 386 bank accounts were opened by the suspects in the said three branches of Syndicate Bank at (i) Malviya Nagar branch, Jaipur, (ii) M.I. Road branch, Jaipur and (iii) Bapu Nagar Branch, Udaipur by using identification documents of genuine account hodlers in other banks with the nexus of bank officials for diverting the bank funds to the tune of 1055.79 Cr. to various destina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... their name or name of associates or was transferred to individuals/firms/companies including those of Shankar Khandelwal, his family members & his group of companies; Himanshu Verma & his companies; Pavitra Kothari, family member & his companies for investment/loan purpose by way of complex maze of financial transactions. Bharat Bomb through the accounts of his associates, and his fictitious firms transferred about Rs. 231.20 Cr. in accounts of Shankar Lal Khandelwal of Guman Group, his family members and his companies out of the Proceeds of Crime generated from Syndicate Bank Fraud and out of the above fund about Rs. 103.07 Cr. has been repaid by Shankar Lal Khandelwal of Guman Group, his family members, his companies and more than Rs. 128,13,64,438/- is still outstanding. Further, Shankar Lal Khandelwal committed fraud aggregating to Rs. 58,22,00,000/- by availing fraudulent housing loans in the name of his associates, employees, family members by showing illicit booking of flats in various projects of Guman Group. That in aggregate Shankar Lal Khandelwal of Guman Group, his family members and his companies are beneficiary of more than Rs. 1,86,35,64,438/- which are Pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sikar, Rajasthan registered in the name of M/s. Shrikripa Rolling Mills LLP; (xii) Movable & Immovable properties registered in the name of Santosh Kumar Gupta, Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank (Retired) and his family members (xiii) Movable & Immovable properties registered in the name of Deshraj Meena, Chief Manager (Suspended), Syndicate Bank and his family members (xiv)Immovable properties of Himanshu Verma and his companies (xv) Immovable properties of Pavitra Kothari, Daulatraj Kothari, Priya Kothari (xvi) Vill No. 40, Pafrth City Kalwar Road, Jaipur registered in the name of Mahendra Meghwal and cash of Rs. 66,88,400/- seized by CBI from Mahendra Meghwal (xvii) Plot No. A-5, Airport Enclave (Airport Plaze Extension) Tonk Road, Jaipur admeasuring 7276.40 Sq. Mtrs in the name of M/s. A. Gangwal Real Estate LLP (xviii) Proceeds of Crime available in various bank accounts of different firms/persons whose accounts were used by Bharat Bomb in defrauding Syndicate Bank (xix) Proceeds of Crime available in various bank accounts of different firms/persons controlled by Shankar Lal Khandelwal. f) It is evident that prime facie the Defendants are in possession of the proceeds of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ched provisionally vide POA dated 16.05.2018 and the confirmation order was incorrectly passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 8. Admitted Case of the parties on record is that: a) Appellant is a Financial Institution established under the State Financial Corporation Act 1951 ('SFC Act' for short) and is a state of Rajasthan undertaking. b) The Appellant granted a loan of Rs. 772.00 Lakh to M/s. Guman Builders & Developers (P) Ltd.,Respondent No.50 herein ('Borrower' for short) for purchase of the said property from Jaipur Development Authority ('JDA' for short). The loan was granted on a margin of 50% after duly verifying everything from JDA regarding title ,payment etc. and further the amount of loan was directly paid to JDA and not given in the hands of the borrower. The said loan has been secured by equitable mortgage of the said property in favour of the appellant by deposit of original title deeds of the said property. The loan was sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 18.11.2014, Loan agreement dated 26.11.2014 alongwith all the necessary documents were duly executed and equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds created on 26.11.2014. The charge was du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... institution and is the mortgagee in possession of the said property against the loan granted to the borrower which loan the borrower has failed to repay and the which appellant is entitled to recover the same from the said property. 11. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the present case is squarely covered by the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Directorate of Enforcement vs. Axis Bank & Ors. reported in 2019 SCC Delhi 7854 dated 2.4.2019 , wherein, it has been observed as under: "163. Having regard to the above scheme of the law in PMLA, it is clear that if a bonafide third party claimant had acquired interest in the property which is being subjected to attachment at a time anterior to the commission of the criminal activity, the product whereof is suspected as proceeds of crime, the acquisition of such interest in such property (otherwise assumably untainted) by such third party cannot conceivably be on account of intent to defeat or frustrate this law. In this view, it can be concluded that the date or period of the commission of criminal activity which is the basis of such action under PMLA can be safely treated as the cut-off. From thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f this Tribunal. Accordingly, under the legislative and statutory scheme of the Act, unless a party has exhausted its remedies in appeal right up to the Hon'ble High Court, an order confirming the attachment cannot be said to have attained finality. This Tribunal is only concerned with the validity of the impugned order and provisional attachment order which has been confirmed. 14. Therefore, this Tribunal possesses the requisite jurisdiction in terms with the Act as the court of first appeal, to adjudicate upon the pleas of the Appellant and determine the bonafides and legitimacy of its claims as well as the legality of the Provisional Attachment Order. Upon an argument being raised by the Enforcement Directorate that claims of third parties are to be solely adjudicated by the Special Court before whom trial is pending. 15. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the Axis Bank Decision has held that the claim of a party asserting a bonafide and legitimate claim would be inquired into by the Special Court only if the order confirming the attachment "has attained finality". An order cannot be said to have attained finality until and unless all the remedies under the Act have bee....