AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 10
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Respondent : Shri Mohd. Faraz, Advocate JUDGEMENT FPA-PMLA-1053-1055, 1035 & 1065/HYD/2015 1. The five appeals have been filed by the above mentioned appellants challenging the common order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 04th August, 2015. 2. In FPA-PMLA-1035/HYD/2015, after hearing on 03rd September, 2015, notice was issued and status quo order was passed in the interim application. The said order was continued. 3. On 17th August, 2016, the said status quo order was modified to the following effect: "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant at the Bar that the interest amount, if permitted to be rolled over, be also tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of Judicature at Hyderabad by filing of Special Leave to appeal (Crl.) no. 7621/2016 in the Supreme Court of India and the same appeal is still pending. The said proceedings were arisen from the O.C. which is also the subject matter of present appeals. 22. The Hon‟ble High Court of Hyderabad has passed the judgment on 18th March, 2016 on the following points: 9. Now the points for consideration are: I. Whether the petitioner/A-3-Srinivasan, being the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of M/s India Cements Limited (A-7), be made personally liable for any acts of India Cements Ltd. with vicarious liability for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with 420 I.P.C. and Section 12 of the Prevention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laneous 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 reproduced 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/-. Ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....803973 shares of Rs. 10/- each in M/s Bharathi Cements Corporation Limited at a total price of Rs. 121.00 crores to M/s PARFICIM, SAS, FRANCE. 23. In case we go through the Judgement of Hyderabad High Court which is sub-judice before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, it would not be appropriate for us to give the final findings about the merits of the case as well as the clarification of the movable and immovable properties. 24. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that without going into the merit of the appeals and without expressing opinion about the rival submissions of the parties on merit, it would be appropriate to await the decision of the Supreme Court. After the said decision, an appropriate order would b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same are being reproduced herein under: "I. Whether the petitioner/A-3-Srinivasan, being the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. India Cements Limited (A-7), be made personally liable for any acts of India Cements Ltd. with vicarious liability for any the offences punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, by virtue of any statutory liability or legal fiction? II. If not, whether petitioner/A-3-Srinivasan, other than of his status or position as Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of India Cement Limited, be made personally liable for any acts and if so on what basis for the final report to accuse and for the learned special judge to take cognizance without specifying as to on vicarious li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onds of the petitioner/A-3-Sri N. Srinivasan, if any, shall stand cancelled. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any stands closed." iv. That in view of the above, the only issue of consideration before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was whether the offences against Mr. N. Srinivasan were liable to be quashed, based on the question whether he could be held personally liable for the acts of the Company by reason of being vicariously liable. It is submitted that the questions being addressed did not involve determination of whether the company (India Cements) had committed any of the alleged offences. v. That the issues which are in consideration in the present proceedings relate to the commission of the alleged offenc....