TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 442
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion against the appellant is for supply of packaged drinking water other than "Rail Neer" and yet claimed and received Rs. 15/- per bottle. The entire amount towards it could not have been taken to be proceeds of crime. 38. A detailed statement about it has been given in the provisional attachment order and even recorded by the Adjudicating Authority. 39. However, from the record, it is not coming out that the amount incurred by the appellant towards supply of packaged drinking water other than "Rail Neer" has been accounted for. The obligation was on the authorities to quantify the proceeds of crime, which we do not find to have been done. 40. The Adjudicating Authority has also failed to take note of the aforesaid issue while confirming the order of attachment. 41. The quantity of packaged drinking water bottles has been referred in the impugned orders but without disclosure of the actual amount incurred by the appellant on it so as to be deducted from the amount reimbursed to them, if they had incurred less amount than received towards the packaged drinking water. For the aforesaid para 8.6 of the order is quoted hereunder:- As per t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er than Rail Neer. Although Defendant no. 4 has not responded, from the contents of the Order of Adjudicating Authority dated 03.12.2018, it is noted that Defendant no. 4 has purchased 3,73,280 bottles other than Rail Neer @ Rs. 8.75 per bottle. 4. As per terms of the agreement with Defendant no. 3 & 4, were not found picking the allotted quota of Railneer and in lieu of the Railneer they were providing other cheap brands of PDW. The non- availability of Railneer for Rajdhani/Shatabdi/Duranto trains in years 2013 and 2014 was not substantiated. 5. The Defendants were required to purchase Railneer from IRCTC, @ Rs. 10 per bottle and they were reimbursed @ Rs. 15 per bottle on submission of their claims by Railways, meaning thereby, that Railways has allowed Rs. 5 per bottle towards the incidental charges like cooling/ providing catering services such as cup and waiter etc, and profit margin. It is conclusively believed that the contract was accepted by the Defendant No. 3 & 4 considering Rs, 5 as reasonable amount towards expenditure incurred and margin. Since Defendant no. 3 & 4, in contravention of the agreement executed by them with the Railways, have not suppli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al vide Order dated 23.11.2022, passed in FPA-PMLA-2808/DLI/2019 titled as M/s Satyam Caterers Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. Director, ED 5. Arguments on the application were heard from both the sides. In short, the contention put forward on behalf of the appellant is that as the Ld. AA has reduced the quantum of proceeds of crime from INR 4,62,45,900/- to INR 3,08,30,600/-, a sum of INR 1,54,15,300, which have been withdrawn from the bank account of the Applicant, be immediately returned by the Enforcement Directorate/Complainant without any further delay. It is submitted that grave prejudice would be caused to the Applicant if the present application is not allowed. Further, no prejudice would be caused to anyone, in the event the present application is allowed. Reliance is placed in this regard on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Nithesh Chaudhari rep by his Power Agent Rajendra Kumar Chaudhari and Ors. v. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Ors., W.P No. 28454 of 2022 and W.P No. 34676 of 2022 (Order dated 30.01.2024) wherein, it was held that where provisional attachment in respect of certain properties was not confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, the at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore the writ petition is finally decided, and in the event of the ultimate dismissal of the writ petition the respondent would gain an undue advantage in spite of its default and might even give rise to other questions in equity including rights of the third party." 10. It is also argued that the instant application is gross misuse of law and exhibits mala-fide intent of the Applicant/Appellant as one on hand, he has assailed the order dated 11.03.2025 passed in OC 993/2018 by Ld. AA and on the other hand, he is seeking return of the said property relying on the same order which he has challenged. It is contended that the Applicant/Appellant is attempting to take advantage of the same order which he has assailed before this forum and as such he cannot blow hot and blow cold at the same time. 11. It is also argued that the respondent Directorate has a prima facie case in its favour and has fair chances of securing a favourable order in the Appeal filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal. It is reiterated that if the instant Application is allowed, irreparable loss would be caused to the respondent Directorate as there is always an apprehension that the proceeds of crime if ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt at this stage when the quantification made by the Authority is under challenge by the directorate. 14. Coming to the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court cited by the counsel for the appellant, the facts of the said case were that 51 immovable properties were attached vide the provisional attachment order passed under section 5(1). Out of the 51 properties, attachment of the attachment of 7 properties was not confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority by its order. The properties whose attachment was not confirmed were specific and identifiable. As against this, in the present case, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has merely re-quantified the proceeds of crime to an amount lower by Rs. 1,54,15,300/- as compared to the original quantification. The said amount of Rs. 1,54,15,300/- is not specifically identifiable in the form of specific properties which have been placed under attachment. Therefore, the case for the immediate release of the amounts lying in the bank is not obvious and automatic, especially at this interim stage when even the main appeal filed by the appellant is yet to be finally heard on merits. 15. Furthermore, in the case before the Madras High Court, the....