2025 (9) TMI 1472

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant argued that the PAO was issued mainly on the ground that mortgage loan was obtained by Pentium Infotech Ltd. (Platinum Corporation Ltd.) from the Ahmedabad People's Cooperative Bank Ltd. (APCBL) for a sum of Rs. 65 Lakhs on equitable mortgage of 12 properties and the said loan was used for clearing the dues of Sh. Dharmendra Babulal Gandhi and of his other firms/companies. He contended that the Respondent has failed to produce any material to show that the loans were obtained fraudulently. Ld. Counsel also contended that the NPA loan was settled under OTS (One time Settlement). The loan amount was received in the mortgage loan account of Pentium Infotech Ltd. and was transferred on the same day to its current account which in turn was utilized towards sale consideration made on behalf of Sh. Ajay Patel for a sum of Rs. 96,64,000/- on 07.06.2025. Registered sale deed was executed on 25.07.2006 between Dharmendra Babulal Gandhi HUF and Sh. Ajay Patel. Ld. Counsel contended that it was a routine business transaction which had been given colour of money laundering. 3. Ld. Counsel further stated that Dharmendra Babulal Gandhi HUF did not surrende....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Pratik R. Shah and Sh. Dharmendra Babulal Gandhi a mortgage loan of Rs. 65 Lakhs was taken from APCBL by M/s Pentium Infotech Ltd. Sh. Pratik R. Shah gave Rs. 60 to 65 Lakhs to Sh. Dharmendra Babulal Gandhi to release the mortgaged Bungalow, (the impugned properties) of his from APCBL. 6. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent stated that Sh. Pratik R. Shah admitted in his statement u/s. 50 of PMLA that he had major business dealings with Sh. Ajay Patel and his companies. Sh. Ajay Patel in his statement stated that he had purchased the impugned properties on 25.07.2006 from Sh. Dharmendra Babulal Gandhi for which he paid Rs. 96,64,000/- by cheque and the remaining Rs. 33,36,000/- by three cheques each of Rs. 11,12,000/- to Dharmendra Babulal Gandhi HUF, and to his family members. Sh. Patel further admitted that he sold the Bungalow. However, Sh. Atul K. Mehta, Chairman of APCHSL stated on 28.02.2014 that the Bungalow stood in the name of Sh. Dharmendra Babulal Gandhi, Sh. Jaimin D. Gandhi and Smt. Smitaben D. Gandhi. Sh. Mehta was not aware of any sale agreement between Sh. Ajay Patel and his wife Smt. Vaishali Patel. In fact, the Application filed by Sh. Ajay Patel for transfer of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sel stated that in view of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the matter of G. Gopalakrishnan Vs The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement & Ors. (MANU/TN/3622/2019), the arguments made by the Appellant in relation to Section 5 & 8 of PMLA are liable to be rejected. The suit filed by the husband of the Appellant in the Civil Court is barred u/s. 41 of PMLA. The suit filed by Sh. Ajay Patel against Dharmendra Babulal Gandhi HUF has not made the Appellant and the Respondent herein, as party to the suit. Ld. Counsel alleged that the suit was filed in collusion with Dharmendra Babulal Gandhi and that is why it was decreed ex- parte. Ld. Counsel concluded that in the Impugned Order detailed reasoning has been given to uphold and confirm the attachment of the Impugned Properties. He therefore pleaded to dismiss the Appeal. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and the material on record. This is the case where the Scheduled Offences were invoked by Ahmedabad Police in view of the loans extended by the APCBL to Sh. Dharmendra Babulal Gandhi and his company as well as to Sh. Pratik R. Shah against mortgage of certain properties. However, they defaulted on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Patel to his wife Smt. Vaishali Patel, who is Appellant herein. The investigations have also revealed that the consideration transferred for the property by the Appellant to her husband was returned to the husband's account on the same day. It thus appears that the sale of the impugned properties to the Appellant was not genuine. A maze of transactions was created among the inter connected bank accounts so as to attempt disguising the payments and receipts as genuine. The Appeal filed by the Appellant against the attachment of the impugned properties is therefore not sustainable. 11. Meanwhile, it appears, to delay the transfer of possession of the impugned property, from Dharmendra Babulal Gandhi HUF to Sh. Ajay Patel a civil suit was instituted so as to show that such transfer in spite of consideration having been paid in the manner described afore was not being executed by Dharmendra Babulal Gandhi HUF. Neither the Respondent Directorate nor the Appellant was made party to the suit. In view of the provisions of Section 41 of PMLA it does not appear that the filing of the suit by Sh. Ajay S. Patel was in accordance with law. 12. The Appellant has also challenged the impugn....