TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 519
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 29.05.2023. The Adjudicating Authority has given gist of the allegation against the accused referring to the FIR lodged on 01.11.2019 with CBI/BSFB/BLR, Bangalore bearing no.11 for the offence under Section 120(b) read with 420,467,468 & 471 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The ECIR was recorded thereupon by the Respondent followed by investigation. The investigation revealed the modus operandi adopted by the accused for commission of offence. It would be gainful to reproduce the gist of the investigation indicated in the impugned order and as quoted hereunder: - "1. Shri Dinesh Chand Surana was the Managing Director of SIL. The company was engaged in manufacturing of TMT bars, CTD Bars and other steel structure at their plot in Gummidipoondi area of Chennai. In the year 2005-06, they decided to set up an Integrated Steel Plant at Raichur, Karnataka along with a 35 MW captive power plant. SIL. decided to set up a B & P plant at the Raichur, the total appraisal given by SBI Capitals for B & P plant was Rs 1200 crores out of which Rs 700 crores, they agreed to infusion through a consortium of Bank, with SBI as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rther revealed that Transaction with M/s Thribovan Enterprises Pvt Ltd, M/s Sayso Exim Pvt Ltd, M/s BLS Power Solution Pvt Ltd, M/s RR Tools Pvt Ltd, M/s Vinayaga Infra Pvt Ltd, M/s C& S Tools Pvt Ltd, M/s Global Industries, M/s Marudhar Trading Company, M/s Maruti Corporation, M/s Natural Coal Pvt Ltd, M/s BK Power & Machinery were found not at arm's length and were the dummy companies of Surana's and under direct control of either Shri Dinesh Chand Surana or Shri Vijayraj Surana. The statement of Director/ Proprietor/ Partner of those companies have been recorded wherein they have equivocally revealed that they were namesake directors/ Partners/ Proprietors and acted as per the direction of Surana's. It is also revealed that Shri K E Devrajan, who was the Executive Director of SCL in his statement approved that the transaction with these companies were nothing but adjustment of book of accounts. 5. The statements of the proprietors of entities namely M/s Global Industries, M/s Supreme Corporation and M/s Prince Enterprises have revealed that they acted as per the directions of Shri Dinesh Chand Surana and they signed the cheques and documents as per his direc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e above investigations conducted, it was revealed that bank funds from borrower companies were diverted to various dummy directors held companies under the management and control of the Surana's, in the guise of regular business transactions and EPC contractors, and from thereon the funds were siphoned off to personal uses and also the proprietorship companies and from thereon in the guise of unsecured loans the same funds were transferred to the personal accounts of the promoters and their spouses and later infused as Promoters contribution in the SIL., SPL as well as SCL. 9. From the investigation conducted it was revealed that the Surana Family members had no income source of their own other than from the company viz. salary, dividends and other ancillary benefits and as discussed above, the shares of those companies had been acquired through the siphoned off bank loans and round tripping them into personal accounts and thereafter infusion of the same as promoter's contribution. In fact, the Surana Family never made any promoters contribution other than the funds siphoned off from the banks. Hence the major income generated by the Surana family is to be construe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsecured loans with the help of entities like M/s Denwood Merchandise, M/s Para Infra, M/s CSK Enterprises, M/s NDK Enterprises etc. and purchased various luxury vehicles and immovable properties in the name of companies, entities and in their personal name using the siphoned off funds. 13. Investigation revealed that one Shri Yashpal Sharma and his company were debtors to SIL for an amount of around Rs. 76 crores for which he could not offer satisfactory explanation. The Radha Group was involved in laundering the proceeds of crime through Vidur Maheswari and his companies which ultimately went to Shakthi Foundation and other entities related to Shri Dinesh Chand Surana. The said amount of Rs. 76,47,67,468/- is arising out of the paper transactions and hence, it appears that the same was done with malafide intention to siphon off the borrowed money of the bank without any actual transactions. The said amount payable has already been taken by Radha Vyapar Pvt Limited into their mainstream business by Shri Yashpal Sharma and the said amount which is nothing but Proceeds of Crime is not identifiable. As the said proceed of crime has been integrated into the mainstream busine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....im order was passed by NCLT on 17.11.2022. However, bare perusal of the order does not show attachment of the properties involved in these cases. In fact, the NCLT has not directed for attachment of any of the properties though the main prayer referred by the Counsel for the Appellants may be for the aforesaid purpose but we find no narration or an order for attachment of the property. It was only for restraining mortgage of the property or creating charge or lien of third parties in any manner alienating the movable or immovable properties. The restrain order cannot constitute to the Provisional Attachment of the properties. The Counsel for the Appellants have been failed to refer to any provision under Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or Companies Act, 2013 empowering NCLT to cause attachment of the properties. In view of the above, it cannot be taken to the case where the properties under attachment before provisionally attached. We may however refer to Section5(1) of the Act of 2002 and is quoted hereby: - "5. Attachment of property involved in money-laundering.-- (1) Where the Director, or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by him ....