TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 960
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as the "Appellant") has filed the present Application under Section 35(2)(f) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, for review of the judgment dated 14.02.2019 passed by this Tribunal. 2. No reply has been filed by the respondent no. 1. The other respondents are not opposing the prayer. 3. By order dated 14.02.2019, this Tribunal allowed the Appeal filed by the Appellant to set aside the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority holding that there were no proceeds of crime and also that there were no valid "reasons to believe" in furtherance of which the Appellant's property at Guindy, Chennai could have been attached. It was held that by selling a property for a consideration below the Guideline Value/Circle Rate is not an of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dgment has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India recently in the judgment dated 02.07.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 5140 of 2019 titled Sunil Vasudeva v. Sundar Gupta. b) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Kamal Sengupta & Anr. (2008) 8 SCC 612 (See Para 21) has held that when review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter of evidence must be relevant and must of such a character that if the same has been produced, it might have altered the judgment. Further, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court earl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there was no reasons to believe, no proceeds of crime and therefore no money laundering, in such circumstances, there was no reason/occasion for this Tribunal to have provided the ED with any security. 9. It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. vs Solanki Traders (2008) 2 SCC 302 (See Para 4-6) has held that attachment before judgment is a drastic and extraordinary power and such power should not be exercised mechanically or merely for the asking. It should be used sparingly and strictly in accordance with the Rule. It was held that if the averments in the plaint/petition and the documents produced in support of it, do not satisfy the Court about the existence of a prima facie case, the Court w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the ED's ECIR was registered solely on the basis of registration of FIR by the CBI. However, the CBI having now filed a Closure Report, the direction to the Petitioner herein to secure the amount of Rs. 115 crores, alleged to be the proceeds of crime by the ED, is clearly an error apparent on the face of the record. It is submitted that closure report having been filed, the same would constitute a sufficient reason within the meaning of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for this Tribunal to review its earlier decision. 12. As far as decisions referred by Mr. Rohtagi are concerned, we agree with each and every finding arrived in the said judgement. 13. This Tribunal is empowered to confirm, modify or set-aside the order appealed under Section 26(4) of ....