TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;Religare Enterprises Limited' ('RFL'). The said company was listed both on NSE and BSE and was held to the extent of 50.93% by the promoters, viz. Malvinder Mohan Singh (MMS) and Shivinder Mohan Singh (SMS); and 49.07% by the public. Business of RFL was diversified into following verticals: * Religare Finvest Limited (RFL) (REL owned 84%) which further owned 100% stake in Religare Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited. * Religare Securities Limited (REL owned 100%) which further owned 100% stake in Religare Commodities Limited and Religare Wealth Management Limited. * Religare Capital Market Limited (REL owned 100%) * Religare Invesco Asset Management Company Pvt. Ltd. (REL owned 51%). * RGAM Investment Advisers Pvt. Ltd. (REL owned 100%) * Religare Health Insurance Co. Ltd. (REL owned 90%) * AEGON Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (REL owned 44%) 3. REL and RFL both had a distinct boards comprising of members majorly including relatives and friends (especially father in law of MMS-Sh. Harpal Singh) of the promoters who were always there to watch the interest of the erstwhile promoters MMS & SMS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Anil Saxena (REL CFO), Mr. Sunil Garg (REL Treasury head) and Mr. Pankaj Sharma (RFL CRO). Thus, the Petitioner was not the concerned person in the sanctioning and disbursal process and it was the responsibility of the abovementioned committees to ensure that all procedures and processes were adhered to in the sanction and disbursement of the loans. Neither the Petitioner nor other officials of REL or RFL ever tried to hide these loans- ICD & CLB, however, were duly informed and within the knowledge of: * Reserve Bank of India * Private Equity Investors like Jacob Ballas, Siggular and IFC * Rating agencies like ICRA. 5. Further, even the auditors of REL i.e. M/s. Price Water house Coopers (PwC) while qualifying their opinion on financials of REL for FY 2016-17 had highlighted these amounts. Mr. Sachindra Nath, who was the Group CEO has been all this time opining that such loans are not covered under related party transactions as per the Companies Act and thus there was no impediment. 6. Mr. Rakesh Khanna and Ms. Rebecca John, learned senior counsels appeared on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the problematic 19 loans have been mentioned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8. It is also submitted that charge sheeted or IO does not observe or even allege that petitioner was getting high salary or bifurcated salary from different entities which was in the nature of kick back for giving loans. But bias of IO is clear as admittedly the IO has been observing that the salary of the petitioner was 24 Crores but it has clearly been mentioned that petitioner received around 24 Crores only in the financial year 2014-15 and never before and after that. The annual report of REL shows that REL recorded a 'Profit After Exceptional Items and Before Tax' of Rs. 4,852.06 million (Rs. 485 Crores), for Financial Year 2014-2015 as compared to 'Profit After Exceptional Items and Before Tax' of Rs. 1,825.04 million (Rs. 182 Crores) for Financial Year 2013-2014. Market Price Index shows that April 2014 BSE recorded High of REL share to Rs. 325 and in March 2015 the same was 411.50. Comparative chart of BSE and NSE Sensex with REL Scrip also shows major peaks and the commanding position in market. Such salary was being given at the time when the share of RELIGARE was strong and growing and the salary was as per the market trend and there was nothing abnormal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner brought the said fact to the notice of this Court and pursuant to the directions dated 6-7-2020, IO filed a Status Report that indeed the money was transferred by Petitioner to RHC, but stated that transfer of Rs. 34.20 to RHC by petitioner was on account of payment towards the earlier loans as availed by Petitioner from RHC Private Limited. 12. Learned senior counsels for petitioner submitted that the documents annexed with SR dated 6-7-2020 itself shows that the loan between Petitioner and RHC started in the year 2006, which was much prior to the 19 alleged transactions of 2016-17 and petitioner has even paid interest and made repayments on 25.02.11 of Rs. 3.35 Crores. Moreover, after receipt of the said documents petitioner pointed out that there are no documents on record to show that Rs. 40 Crores was transferred in alleged sequence i.e. from RFL to RHC and then out of that Rs. 40 Crores, RHC transferred to Today Holding, which eventually was transferred to Petitioner. In other words, the allegation that money as received by Petitioner was disbursed from complainant RFL was not proved. Thus, once again IO took time to point out those statements from the charges....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her been recorded in report that entire CLB portfolio was orchestrated by Mr.Hemant Dhingra and Narender Kumar Gowshal. c. It has been found out that It was monthly affair of Hemant Dhingra and Narender Kumar Goshal and they used to look after all the details of such loans. d. Further it is important to note that one of the said 19 loan transactions, Loan amounting to Rs. 150 Crores was given to company by the name of "Star Artworks Private Limited" in the year 2017, when the Petitioner was Non Key Management Personnel and had stopped going to office as well, and in the said company wife of the Hemant Dhingra was the 50% Shareholder and earlier was Director as well. The documents extracted from chargesheet showing directorship and shareholding of wife of Hemant Dhingra. e. Further Hemant Dhingra was the Authorized Signatory in the Bank accounts of "Star Artworks Private Limited". So admittedly money has gone to Hemant Dhingra, but the Investigating Officer chose to make him witness and the same shows the mala fide in investigation. Further Hemant Dhingra was Authorised Signatory in Bank accounts of most of such companies in which loans have been given and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore did not need working capital. The proposal to fund working capital of such entities was only a camouflage for the siphoning. Moreover, no request for borrowing the funds was ever received by RFL from the borrower companies but funds amounting to thousands of crores were extended on the basis of one-page MOUs. 18. Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned senior counsel for complainant and Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, learned APP for State jointly submitted that the case of Artifice Properties Pvt. Ltd. evidences the true intention behind extending these loans. Artifice Properties Pvt. Ltd. had no business income, but still the funds were extended by RFL, ostensibly as working capital facility. Approval for the same was given by the Applicant on 31-8-2016. Investigation has revealed that the Petitioner - Sunil Godhwani controlled and managed the siphoning at each stage. He played a crucial role in (a) RFL's affairs; (b) in the affairs of shell companies which received funds from RFL; and (c) in RHC's affairs - which received the siphoned funds from the shell entities. The Petitioner was the Chairman and Managing Director in REL between 2010 and 2016, which is the parent company of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Best Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 20. It is submitted that not surprisingly, (a) Tripoli Investment and Trading; and (b) Volga Management and Consultancy are related to the Petitioner/Sunil Godhwani. In addition, as part of the RPT Committee, the Petitioner also approved loans to shell entities despite opposition from the independent director - Mohnish Dutt and ensured that the loans amounting to approximately Rs. 492 crores were disbursed to the following entities: (a) Zolton Properties Private Limited (b) Artifice Properties Private Limited (c) Modland Wears Private Limited 21. Further submitted, of the 10 entities to which loans were approved by petitioner, Ravi Kohli and Vikramaditya Rajput were directors of 4 entities: (a) Best Health Management; (b) Vitoba Realtors; (c) Zolton Properties Private Limited; and (d) Artifice Properties Private Limited. As mentioned above, Artifice Properties is an entity related to petitioner and loans were extended to it on this basis. 22. Additionally, they were directors of shareholding companies of 3 other entities: (a) Modland Wears Private Limited (Ravi Kohli dire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the evidence, hamper investigation and influence the witnesses. Hence, he may not be released on bail. 26. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 27. On perusal, the Petitioner received an amount of Rs. 34 crores from Fern Healthcare Private Limited, one of the shell companies, as part of the benefits for working closely with the Promoters. Fern Healthcare is an entity related to petitioner and loans to the same were proposed and approved by him. The chargesheet clearly records that the real source of the said money was the complainant company. The bank statements filed by the I.O. pursuant to Order dated 2-7-2020 shows that the Petitioner used the abovementioned funds to clear his outstanding liabilities towards RHC Holdings on the very same day on which the money was disbursed by the Complainant Company and was finally routed to the Petitioner. 28. It is on record that the Petitioner gave approval for 9 out of the 19 loans which forming part of the chargesheet. 3 (three) of these loans were purportedly against charge of property. The purported LAP Loans (Loan Against Pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 13106/2020 and same has been disposed of vide order dated 17-7-2020. Whereas, present pettion was heard on 10-7-2020 and pending for judgment, however, meanwhile, through Court Master, this Court has been apprised about the said order wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that although, the petitioner (therein) may be justified in relying upon documents brought on record to indicate that the finding of the fact noted by this Court (High Court) in the impugned judgment is correct or contrary to record, even so, stating overall view of the matter, there lordships decline to interfere with the order granting bail to Anil Saxena. Further observed, the observations in the impugned order of bail are confined to R-2 (therein) and cannot be used as precedent/parity for other accused. The case of other accused be considered on its merit. 32. As argued by learned APP & learned counsel for complainant, while a fraction of the money trail of Rs. 2000 crores has been discovered, the investigation is still ongoing with respect to other fraction which remains untraced. Economic Offences Wing (EOW), SEBI as well as several other agencies, including Enforcement Directorate, is stil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inal justice system that people repose. It would certainly not be safe for the society. In case the applicant accused is granted regular bail, it is also likely that he may tamper with the evidence/witnesses, or even threaten them considering that the stake for the accused is high. It is also very much likely that looking to the high stakes, the nature and extent of his involvement, and his resources, he may flee from justice." 37. Similarly, in Gurmeet Singh v. CBI [2017 (162) DRJ 488], this Court held as under: "12. The main argument addressed by learned senior counsels for the petitioners is that entire allegations of the CBI show that being an offence of serious nature, bail should not be granted, whereas in Sanjay Chandra (supra) Supreme Court noted that the statement of the witnesses ran into seven hundred pages and the other documentary evidence was also too voluminous, so the trial may take considerable time and the appellant therein would have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention had they been convicted, thus it was not in the interest of justice that they should be in jail for indefinite period. In Sanjay Chandra (supra) the Supreme Court was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the present case is complete. There are 284 accused persons and documents on which reliance has been placed are voluminous and trial may take considerable time and, therefore, the petitioner in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra's case (supra) be released on bail. However, the said case is distinguishable from the case in hand as the charges in the said case carried a maximum punishment for a term which may extend to seven years whereas in the present case, the petitioner is alleged to involved in offence u/s. 36(c), 128, 129, 447, 448 of the Companies Act, 2013; u/s. 209, 211 r/w 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 and under section 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and one of the offence u/s. 467 IPC is punishable with imprisonment up to life." 40. In addition to above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka AIR 2017 SC 1685 has held that filing of the chargesheet does not lessen the allegations of the prosecution in any manner. To the contrary, it establishes material against accused persons. Similar pronouncement has been made in Ramendu Chattopadya case (supra) and Ni....