TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1834
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or Forum shall entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any claim or related matter(s) pertaining to PACL Ltd. and/or its Directors/Promoters/ Group Companies / entities/ individuals etc., arraying therein as parties/Defendants/Respondents the Justice (Retd.) R.M. Lodha Committee (in the matter of PACL Ltd.), and/or its Chairman and/or its Members and/or the Securities and Exchange Board of India and further no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other Authority or Forum in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the Justice (Retd.) R.M. Lodha Committee (in the matter of PACL Ltd.) and/or its Chairman and/or its Members and/or the Securities and Exchange Board of India, with respect to claims and/or matter(s) relating to investments/deposits etc. in/ with PACL Ltd. or its Directors/Promoters/Group/ Companies/Entities/Individuals etc." 3. Both learned senior counsels for the petitioners and learned Spl. PP for the CBI submit that the said prayer was allowed after a Committee under the chairmanship of Justice R.M. Lodha (Retd. Chief Justice of India) was constituted to sell up the properties of the company involved in the above noted FIR so that amounts co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld that M/s PACL was running collective investment schemes and directions were issued to M/s PACL to pay to the investors. Appeal filed by M/s PACL to the Appellate Tribunal was dismissed and finally on 2 nd February, 2016 the Hon'ble Supreme Court appointed a Committee under the chairmanship of Justice R.M. Lodha, retired Chief Justice of India to sell the assets and pay the investors. Directors of the Company were directed to assist the Committee. It is thus prayed that since the petitioners are required to assist the Committee constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for sale of assets and repayment to the investors, the participation of the petitioners is essential for which they should be granted bail. 5. Learned Senior Counsels for the petitioners further contend that after the above noted FIR was registered on 19th February, 2014, all bank accounts of the company were frozen on 22nd February, 2014 and title documents were seized on 15th March, 2014. Thus, all the hard discs, documents etc. which are required for the purpose of trial are already in the custody of CBI and the petitioners are not required to participate in any further investigation. Despite the fact th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, Australia by selling a hotel of the company. During the course of investigation it has been revealed that funds of more than Rs.3400 crores obtained from the investors of M/s PACL were diverted to 638 sister concerns and around 5500 properties were purchased. Further though the investments were taken on the pretext that 36% money would be invested in the properties sold to the investors and 64% in development of the properties ostensibly sold to the investors, sale deeds executed in favour of the investors were mostly forged and fabricated. Purported sale deeds were executed of the lands which were not owned by M/s PACL and were Government lands of which M/s PACL was not the owner. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the CBI on the decisions reported as (1987) 2 SCC 364 State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal & Anr., (2013)7SCC439 Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 466 Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 452 Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, 2015(1) JCC 451(SC) Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P., 2015 (2) JCC 1127 (SC) Vinod Bhandari Vs. State of M.P., 2012(3) JCC 2183 Sunil Grove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as M/s Thamirabarani Farm & Agricultural Development Pvt. Ltd.), M/s Madras Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as M/s Thamirabarani Farm& Development Pvt. Ltd.), Aspen Farm Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ivy Farm Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bhumika Farm Developers Pvt. Ltd., Tulika Farm Developers Pvt. Ltd., Budhi Pallien Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Gramin Environment & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Gramin Colonisers & Construction Pvt. Ltd., Kundalini Buildways Pvt. Ltd., Shashti Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Swarnika Skyhi Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Varishsena Farming Construction Pvt. Ltd., Yavakrida Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and Yadavi Farming Construction Pvt. Ltd. On the strength of sham documents, money was rotated amongst these companies. As per M/s PACL Circular No.62/2010 dated 16th July, 2010 expected value of land at the end of agreement of various plans was mentioned. Thus, if a customer invested Rs.10,000/- in the company, he would be allotted 200 sq. yard plot and after 10 years the expected value of the land was shown as Rs.37100/- irrespective of the place of land which was highly improbable. By creating a pyramid structure, number of agents were recruited as commission ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... transferred. Further PACL had allotted the bogus land comprised in Kh.99 (owned by farmers for years - Never purchased by PACL) to its 9 investors in the year 2011. When the gullible customers were informed that PACL has shown the allotment of bogus land to them, they realized that they have been cheated by PACL. iv. While he was director, as per PACL Circular No.62/2010 dated 16.07.2010 the investment received from gullible customer was being utilized as 36% : Cost of Plot and 64% : Development & other charges. Investigation revealed that the company has cheated the customers in the name of land development work and actually no land development work was carried out and the thousands of crores rupees/funds were diverted by taking bogus invoices from Kolkata based shell companies & other companies, purported shown as engaged in the land development work. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner accused person in conspiracy with other accused persons had diverted about 11,000 Crores through bogus land development through Kolkata based shell companies & others which was also corroborated by Income Tax Department report. v. While he was director, the work order -cum- agreeme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No.314 & 99 of Akbarpur, Meerut(UP) is purportedly shown purchased by PACL through Agreement to Sell & GPA dated 27.3.2009 from M/s Spacecity Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (Intermediary/front company of PGF). A possession letter also enclosed with the same. In the Agreement to Sell it is mentioned that :the First Party has delivered the peaceful and vacant possession of the said land to second party on the spot". The crucial fact is that how the above Govt. land of Kh. No.314 (Kabristan) can be sold/purchased and how the physical possession of the same can be transferred. Further PACL had allotted the bogus land of above Kh.99 to its 9 investors in the year 2011. When the gullible customers were informed that PACL has shown the allotment of bogus land to them, they realized that they are cheated by PACL. iii. Being Whole Time Director (Executive Director) of PACL, sometimes he has chaired the board meeting and signed the minutes of board meetings, running illegal scheme, cheating customers. He played significant role in decision making, policy decisions and day-to-day running affairs of the company, while sitting in the Board of Directors of PACL. iv. As director he is also responsi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 not dealing with a case of large number of investors rather the allegations were in respect of criminal conspiracy between the accused in the year 2009 to get UAS license for providing telecom services to a company otherwise ineligible to get UAS license. 13. Even in Manoranjana Sinh @ Gupta (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken into consideration various ailments, the appellant therein was facing and also the fact that disclosure in the latest status report of the CBI revealed that further confinement of the appellant therein in judicial custody was not an indispensable necessity for the unhindered investigation that was in progress. 14. In the decision reported as....