TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 662
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atter of procurement of 12 VVIPs helicopters from M/s AgustaWestland International Ltd. Accordingly, CBI, New Delhi, registered an FIR vide RC-217/2013/A0003 dated 12.03.2013 against Mr. Carlo Gerosa, Mr. Guido Ralph Haschke, Mr. Gautam Khaitan and other persons/companies for commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC and Sections 7, 8, 9, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Subsequently, Directorate of Enforcement on 03.07.2014 recorded an ECIR No. DLZO/15/2014 against said accused persons/companies. As per investigation, to get contract dated 08.02.2010 for supply of 12 VVIP helicopters for Euro 556.262 million, kickbacks of Euro 70 million was paid by M/s Agusta Westland. Out of aforementioned amount, Euro 24.37 million was paid to M/s IDS Information Technology and Engineering Sari, Tunisia by M/s AgustaWestland, out of which Euro 12.4 million was transferred to M / s Interstellar Technologies Limited, Mauritius. 3. Investigations also revealed that M/s Interstellar Technologies Limited, Mauritius transferred an amount of USD 4,731,480 (between September, 2008 to June, 2009) and Euro 240,049 (Febr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same person. 8. It was also revealed that in the books of account of M/s RAKGT, two ledger accounts in the name of (i) Omar Ali Balsharaf-DO and (ii) Omar Ali Balsharaf-GK were maintained. From the ledger account, maintained in the name of Omer Ali Balsharaf-GK, it transpired that M/s RAKGT had received money directly from M/s Interstellar Technologies Limited, Mauritius and other companies including M/s Carisma Investment Ltd., M/s Choice Point Trading, M/s Duet Ltd., M/s Future Key Trading, M/s High Image Trading, M/s Windsor-Group Holdings etc, but the same was incorporated in the ledger account titled as Omar Ali Balsharaf- GK. Related documents to explain nature and purpose of transactions are still awaited. 9. Thus, from the investigation it was revealed that funds to the tune of Rs. 110 crores have been received by M/s RAKGT from various companies. Also, said amount has been parked in the accounts of M/s RAKGT from various companies, maintained in the ledger accounts of M/s RAKGT under the head, M/s Omar Ali Balsharaf-GK, whereas, said funds have been received by M/s RAKGT from different companies other than Omar Ali Balsharaf. Thus, ill-gotten money is suspected to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e links with proceeds of crime derived from Agusta Westland and certain documents including proceeds of crime and/or records relating to money laundering which can be useful or relevant for investigation and other proceedings under PMLA, 2002 are secreted in their premises. 13. During course of investigation, a search under Section 17 of PMLA was conducted on 22.03.2018 at the premises of M/s SMC Global Securities Ltd. (respondent No.3) at the address mentioned above and relevant articles/ documents were seized which are crucial for investigation of offence under money laundering after the issuance of search warrants of the competent officer. During search of premises of respondent No.3, under Section 17 of PMLA, it was found that depository of broker M/s SMC Global Securities Ltd. was in possession of 42,50,000 shares of M/s KRBL in the name respondent No.1 and 35,88,330 shares of M/s KRBL in the name of respondent No.2 making a total of 78,38,330 shares of M/s KRBL owned by respondent Nos.1 & 2 in Dematerialized form. Since it was not practicable to seize above-said shares in physical form, therefore, a freezing order in terms of Section 17(1 A) of the PMLA for freezing of debit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oceedings relating to any offence under the PMLA. 17. Original Application No. 242 of 2018 was filed under Section 17(4) of PMLA before learned Adjudicating Authority praying for continuation of freezing orders dated 14.06.2018 with respect to: (i) 64,94,891 shares of M/s KRBL owned by respondent Nos.1 and 2. (ii) an amount of Rs. 30,35,006.90 available in Account No.000405071796 with ICICI Bank, CP New Delhi. 18. Accordingly, vide an order dated 05.12.2018, learned Adjudicating Authority allowed Original Application No. 242 of 2018 and ordered continuance of freezing orders dated 14.06.2018 pertaining to: (i) 64,94,891 shares of M/s KRBL owned by respondent Nos.1 and 2. (ii) an amount of Rs. 30,35,006.90 available in Account No. 000405071796 with ICICI Bank, CP New Delhi., during the pendency of any proceedings relating to any offence under PMLA. 19. Being aggrieved by orders of learned Adjudicating Authority dated 10.09.2018 and 05.12.2018, respondent No.1 herein preferred an appeal to the Tribunal as provided by the PMLA. However, said Tribunal vide impugned order dated 29.8.2019 partly allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.1 by recording as under: "107. As ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. . . The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy..." (emphasis added) 23. Learned counsel further relied upon judgment passed in the case of State of Nagaland vs. Lipokao : [2005] 3 SCC 752 wherein the Supreme Court has observed in para 9 of the judgment as under: "What counts is not the length of the delay but the sufficiency of the cause, and shortness of the delay is one of the circumstances to be taken into account in using the discretion....." (emphasis added) 24. Learned counsel also relied upon judgment passed in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji : 167 ITR 471 (SC), whereby the Supreme Court has inter alia held that where the defaulting party is the Government/State, the doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State/Government as a litigant, are accorded ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t present appeal was taken up on 23.01.2020 and thereafter, dubious application being CRL.M.A.No.3338/2020 was filed by the applicant in the captioned appeal. Prayer thereto is to treat another purported appeal filed purportedly on 24.12.2019 (vide diary No.162374/2019), purportedly returned (date not mentioned) after the winter break, however, not filed thereafter, which amounts to seeking permission to perpetrate dubious act. Alternative dubious prayer is to wilfully disobey the law declared by the Supreme Court of India. 29. Reliance is placed on decision in Union of India vs. Popular Construction Co. : (2001) 8 SCC 470, whereby held as under: "12. As far as the language of Section 34 of the 1996 Act is concerned, the crucial words are 'but not thereafter' used in the proviso to sub-section (3). In our opinion, this phrase would amount to an express exclusion within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, and would therefore bar the application of section 5 of that Act. Parliament did not need to go further. To hold that the Court could entertain an application to set aside the Award beyond the extended period under the proviso, would render the phrase ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or unamended provision, there is no separate power to condone delay, as is contained in Section 20(3) of the Act; and second, that the period of 60 days was considered too long and cut down to 30 days thereby evincing an intention that review petitions, if they are to be filed, should be within a shorter period of limitation - otherwise they would not be maintainable." 33. It is an admitted case of applicant that initially appeal was filed on 24.12.2019 vide diary No.1621374/2019 and same was returned under objections which is still pending in the Registry. Whereas, in para 5 of the captioned appeal, it is specifically mentioned that no other appeal is filed or pending before this Court or any other Court. 34. Learned counsel for applicant submits that instead of re-filing the appeal filed on 24.12.2019, the applicant/appellant has filed the present appeal by mistake. 35. This fact was not brought to the notice of the Court when matter was taken up on 23.01.2020 and on the said date, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 strongly argued that the captioned appeal is filed after 120 days which is the maximum limit prescribed under Section 42 of PMLA Act and the same....