TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 1574
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Type Date of agreement Properties Description & Area Area Amount paid (including Agreement Value+ expenses (Rs.) Sale Deed No. 1. Pune Plot 06.12.12 Land at Survey No. 32/2A/1/1, 32/2A/1/2, 32/2A/1/3, 32/2A/1/4, 32/2A/1/5, 32/2A/1/6, 32/2A/1/7, 32/2A/1/8, 32/2A/2/1, 32/2A/2/2, 32/2A/2/3, 32/2A/2/4, 32/2A/2/5, 32/2A/2/6, 32/2A/2/7, 32/2A/2/8, 32/2A/5/1, 32/2A/5/2, 32/2A/5/3, 32/2A/5/4, 32/2A/5/5, 32/2A/5/6, located at Kondhawa Budruk, Tal. Haveli, dist. Pune. 12000 Sq. Mtrs 115531540 9209/2 012 2. As per the facts of the case, FIR No. 323/2015 dated31.10.2015 was registered by Police Station Deccan, Pune on the basis of complaint filed by Shri Sachin Sonawane, Assistant General Manager of Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Mumbai for offences under Section 120-B IPC r/w 420 & 188 of IPC 1860 against M/s Samruddha Jeevan Foods India Ltd., Pune, Mahesh Kisan Motewar Pune, Mrs. Vaishali Mahesh Motewar, Sadar Ghanshyam J. Patel, Pune, Rajendra Pandurang Bhandare, Solapur, all Directors of M/s Samruddha Jeevan Foods India Ltd. (herein after referred to as "SJFIL"); FIR revealed that the Preliminary enquiry conducted by SEBI reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted company. They were looking after the day-to-day affairs of the company during the relevant period and had hatched a conspiracy in a planned manner and induced large scale illegal damage to the depositors and accrued illicit profit to themselves and hence, have committed offence under Section 120-B of the IPC. As the commission of offence under Section 420 r/w 120-B IPC are schedule offence under PMLA, 2002, Mumbai Zonal Office ED registered ECIR No. 01/MZO/2016 dated 12.01.2016 against the suspects and conducted investigation under PMLA. During the investigation it is revealed that another criminal case, Chatushrungi Police Station, Pune has registered FIR on 20.11.2014 which was transferred to Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Pune for further investigation. CID after conducting investigation filed three Charge Sheets on 27.6.2016, on 27.10.2016 & on 07.11.2016 against Mahesh Kisan Motewar, Leena Mahesh AU Motwear, Vaishali Mahesh Motewar and Rajendra Bhandari and invoked section 406, 409, 420 & 120(8) of IPC and Section 3 of MPID Act and Sections 3, 4 5, 6 of Prize Chit and Money Speculation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1987 of which section 420 & 120B of IPC 1208 are sch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. During Investigation ED recorded statement of many persons under Section 50 (2) & (3) of PMLA, 2002 including the suspects. After considering the material on record learned Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned order dated 27.11.2017, whereby the attachment of the properties was confirmed. Aggrieved by the said order appellant filed the present appeal. 3. During the arguments learned counsel for the appellant partnership firm M/s Hill Town Construction and the other appellants/partners submitted that the appellant partnership firm is owner of property at serial no.125 of page 24 of the Provisional Attachment Order dated 12.06.2017 as per detail mentioned in para no.1 above. The said plot was previously owned by M/s Samruddha Jeevan Construction Pvt. Ltd. M/s Samruddha Jeevan Construction Pvt. Ltd decided to construct the said plot of Land, they prepared layout of the land admeasuring about 5835.75 Sq. Mtrs. from the main land and prepared layout for the said area. The Pune Municipal Corporation sanctioned the said layout and also sanctioned plans of proposed building by CC No.CC/1426/14 on 7-08-2014. The Collector of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o directors, 1) Mr. Prasad Kishor Paraswar and Mrs. Priyanka Devidas Sonawane, as Vendor and M/s Hill Town construction firm through its Partners 1) Mr. Rajjak Ahmed Mulani 2) Mr. Sohail Rajjak Mulani 3) Mr. Hasnain Rafik Jafarani 4) Mrs. Kalpana Hanumant Kamdhare as Purchaser. He stated that the sale-deed was executed in favor of appellants, after the vendor received full consideration and sale price of the said land and project. The Sale Deed was registered at the Office of Sub-Registrar Haveli No.13 Pune at Serial No. 5935/2016 on 30/07/2016. As per the terms & conditions of said Sale Deed, the Vendors have assured the appellants that said property is clear and is having marketable title. On the assurance and promise of Vendor appellants have purchased the said land and project. Copy of the Sale Deed dated 30th July, 2016, is annexed asAnnexure-A3. Appellant purchased the said plot of land along with liability of 48 Flat purchasers, who have booked the flats in the said scheme. The consideration amount of the said Plot of land and project is Rs. 10,75,00,000/-. The Part of the consideration amount of Rs. 3,29,00,000/- (Three Crore Twenty-Nine Lakh only) was directly paid by A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for valuable consideration without any knowledge of illegalities. Prayer is accordingly made to set aside the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and release the property of the appellants, being passed on their back without any notice, without appreciating the fact that the same was already sold vide Sale Deed dated 30.01.2016, before the passing of Provisional Attachment Order dated12.06.2017. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-ED submitted that M/s Samruddha Jeevan Group Companies purchased this property/land directly from the proceeds of crime. Hence, the same is rightly confirmed for attachment by the Adjudicating Authority, as per law. He submitted that ECIR was registered by Mumbai Zonal Office of respondent-ED on 12.01.2016 for investigation under Provision of Money Laundering Act against all the suspects as mentioned therein. He pointed out that when the said case was under investigation, the suspects/accused persons transferred the property in favor of the present appellant firm vide Sale Deed dated 30.07.2016. Accordingly, he argued that appellant firm is not a bona-fide purchaser in any manner and colluded with the accused perso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rgument is not credible that they were unaware of the type of business or activities the Samruddha Jeevan group was involved in and the cases booked against the Samruddha Jeevan group/its directors by the Law Enforcement Agencies since 2014. He pointed out that the original owners of the properties were made defendants to the said PAO and were given opportunities by the Adjudicating Authority to defend themselves and clarify all the points in relation to the properties ascribed to their name. However, the Samruddha Jeevan Construction Pvt. Ltd. and its directors/share-holders had always maintained before the AA, PMLA that the said properties were in their name and never put forward any arguments before AA, PMLA indicating that they have transferred the properties in question to the Appellants after the investigations were initiated against them. He submitted that all the parties who have been involved in the receipt and transfer of funds with the Samruddha Jeevan Group of companies were investigated and probed by the ED office to ascertain theflow of POC. Mahesh Kisan Motewar was arrested by the LEAs in Dec. 2015 and the transfer of the impugned properties had taken place in 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nies and persons and the money laundering offences under PMLA. He also pointed out that the Prosecution Complaint (PC) as per the provisions of Section 8(4) of the PMLA has been filed before the Special PMLA Court in Mumbai by ED in July, 2018 and the Hon'ble Court has taken cognizance of the money laundering offence against the Accused including the defendants in the Appeal, viz. Samruddha Jeevan group entities and other related/abetting entities. He contended that under Section 8(8) of the PMLA any party having genuine claim/interest in the properties attached and liable to be confiscated under PMLA may apply before the Special Court for restoration of the properties to them. Prayer is accordingly made, to dismiss the present appeal being devoid of any merits. 5. After hearing the rival submissions, I have given my thoughtful consideration to the same. M/s Samruddha Jeevan Construction Pvt Ltd purchased the attached land vide sale deed no. 9209 dated 06.12.2012. In the present case ECIR/01/MBZO/ 2016 dated 12.01.2016 was registered against M/s Samrudha Jeevan Foods India Ltd. and its directors namely Mahesh Kisan Motewar, Ms. Vaishali Mahesh Motewar, Sadar Ghanshyam J. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ideration of Rs. 4,71,00,000/- was tendered by way of post dated cheques from 01.08.2016 to 20.10.2016. Even it is not clear whether the said post dated cheques were really encashed by the vendor or not. It is a matter of further investigation and trial to check and verify whether the present sale deed dated 30.07.2016 was a sham paper transaction to avoid the attachment proceedings or alternatively, appellants are not a bonafide purchasers, on account of knowledge on their part. It is pertinent to mention here that M/s Jeevan Jyoti Construction Pvt. Ltd is one of the group companies of Samruddha Jeevan Group and one of the defendants in the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant firm is one of the members of the Hamy Group, consisting of the appellant, M/s. Hamy Construction Pvt. Ltd and other firms/companies. From the records, it is revealed that there has been transfer of significant amounts between Hamy Group companies/firms and M/s Jeevan Jyoti Constructions in November, 2015, which was well before the impugned sale deed of the property on 30.07.2016 and also before the arrest of Mahesh Kisan Motewar in December, 2015, who is the key person of the Samrudd....