TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 585
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Provisional Attachment Order dated 27 February 2017 ("PAO"). The Respondent No.1 by the PAO had attached properties (in the form of mutual funds and bank accounts) to the tune of Rs. 21,38,66,041 (Twenty-one crores thirtyeight lacs sixty-six thousand and forty-one] of the Appellant. 2. The Appellant submits that the Impugned Order suffers from serious legal infirmities and for non-application of mind; as the Adjudicating Authority does not deal with the submissions of the Appellant and therefore, lacks a judicial approach as all issues raised in the reply has not discussed and legally decided. The impugned order has been passed in complete violation of the statutory provisions. 3. The attachment of the Appellant's properties, have b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e subject case on 11-8- 2016 against the 9 accused as detailed below: (a) Shri K.R. Sridhara Murthi, Managing Director (Retired), Antrix Corporation Ltd., (b) Shri Ramachandran Vishwanathan, President & CEO M/s. Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd., (c ) Shri M.G. Chandrasekhar, Director M/s. Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. (d) M/s. Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore (e ) Shri G. Madhavan Nair, Retired Secretary DoS, Chairman ISRO & Chairman Antrix (f) Shri Veena S. Rama Rao, Then Additional Secretary, DoS (g) Shri A. Bhaskarnarayana, Retired Director, ISRO & Satellite Communication Office (h) Shri D. Venugopal, Director M/s. Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd., (i) Shri M. Umesh, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imited informing that they have put the investment of Rs. 5,23,82,400/- pertaining to DMPL under freeze. (e ) Reply dated 9-1-2017 received from DHFL Pramerica Asset Managers Pvt. Ltd., informing that they have blocked the investments worth Rs. 11,57,76,000/- of the subject company. (f) Search was conducted under the provisions of PMLA on the premises of M/s. Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd., n 23-1-2017 and certain relevant documents viz., original agreement dated 28-1-2005 between Antrix Corporation Ltd., and Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore (DMPL) regarding the leasing of space segment capacity to DMPL, Forex outward remittance documents, Balance Sheets for the years 2011-12 & 2012-13 and other documents were seized. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (j) Other deposits to the extent of about Rs. 3 Crores which was given as inter-corporate loan by M/s. Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd., to its group companies were identified and the concerned bank was asked not to release the said amount. (k) Provisional Attachment Order No. 5/2017 dated 27-2-2017 was issued attaching an amount of Rs. 79,76,00,041/- available as upfront reservation fee with ACL as well as in the form of Mutual Fund Deposits and inter-corporate loan. (l) Aggrieved by the Provisional Attachment Order DMPL filed WP No. 11544/2017 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon'ble High Court in its Order dated 15-3-2017 has ordered that "provisional attachment may continue. However, further precipita....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Adjudicating Authority vide the Order dated 11- 10-2017 in the O.C. No. 2017 confirmed the PAO in respect of the attachment involved in the W.P. No. 11544/2017. (q) As on date, entire Proceeds of Crime attached under Provisional Attachment Order No. 5/2017 dated 27-2-2017 amounting to Rs. 79,76,00,041/- + the accumulated interest totally amounting to Rs. 80,50,12,484/- was already taken possession by the Directorate u/s 8(4) of the PMLA. (r ) Further, Prosecution Complaint for offence of Money Laundering u/s 3 punishable u/s 4 of the Act, was filed against DMPL and 9 others before the Hon'ble Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalor City and Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on 12-7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ockingly, the contents of these documents are almost identical and which evidences that the Respondent No.1 i.e. the author of the PAO and Original Complaint and the AA i.e. the author of the Impugned Order, has not applied his mind. He who passed the order was not the Judicial Member. The order was passed in very casual manner. In serious and complicated issues cut paste of pleadings and documents is not acceptable. It is the approach of claimed that PMLA is an independent proceeding and it has own mechanism to decide the matter on merit. 10. It appears to us that the reply, appellant has put its case in details issue-wise. No doubt, the contents of the reply was re-produced but the said legal issues have not been decided. 11. In the....