TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 10
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....EMENT 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 treated at par with the Fixed Deposits under attachment, the interi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../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 of Corruption Act, by virtue of any statutory liability or legal fiction? II. If not, whether petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es 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/-. 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 increa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rough 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 be passed in the light of the said judgment. 25. The appeal filed by the India Cement Ltd. is already adjourned to 09.07.2018 for awaiting the decision of the Apex Court. List th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 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 liability or personnel liability? III. Whether the cognizance taken by the learned special judge without specifying as to on vicarious liability or personnel liability, is outcome of non-application of judicial mind an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 offence of money laundering by India Cements in the guise of investment as quid pro quo into Bharathi Cement and the question whether, there are grounds for attachment of the investments made by India Cements into Bharathi Cement. vi. The present proceedings therefore, do not involve ....