AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1627
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Singh Sodhi:- i) Property no. 47, Ashoka Park Extension, Basai Darapur, New Delhi-110026, purchased from Rifakat Ali & others; ii) Property no. 48, Ashoka Park Extension, Basai Darapur, New Delhi-110026, purchased from Mauhabbat & others. 2. As per the facts of the case, on the basis of a complaint made by the Indian Overseas Bank, CBI, BS & FC, New Delhi had registered an FIR No. RCBD1/2016/E/0007 dated 08.08.2016 under Section 120B r/w 420 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 against the accused Ashu Mehra, Mr. Nitish Negi, Mr. Gaurav Bhatia (all three Assistant Managers, Indian Overseas Bank, Chandigarh), Dinesh Kumar (Proprietor, M/s. Vision Procon), Mr. Amanpreet Singh Sodhi (Proprietor, M/s. Heights International), M/s. Sai Bhakti Impex Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Gaurav Kirpal, Mr. Aman Kirpal, M/s. Colour Wave (H K) Ltd. Hongkong, Brigadier (Retd.) M.S. Dullat and other unknown public servants & private persons on the following allegations: i) The accused Ashu Mehra had been working as an Assistant Manager, Forex Department, Indian Overseas Bank, Chandigarh Main Branch since 2010 and was also having the authority to make and check all sw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d modus-operandi, had created liability against the bank to the tune of Rs. 321 crores (calculated at the exchange rate of Rs. 67/- per USD) which was due for payment between 01.07.2016 to 28.01.2017 that further it was alleged that there was no movement of goods & services or underlying commercial transactions behind these fraudulent transfers of funds. vii) On the basis of the fraudulent LOUs issued by Sh. Ashu Mehra, the foreign banks have credited the accounts of the beneficiary i.e. M/s. Colour Wave (HK) Ltd. The bank had also informed that from their preliminary investigations, it was found that the accused Mr. Amanpreet Singh Sodhi, Proprietor of M/s. Heights International is also Director in M/s. Colour Wave (HK) Ltd., Hong Kong, which is beneficiary for all the buyers credit Further, Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. Vision Procon, had been an authorized signatory for the operations in the account of M/s. Heights International and there are also inter-account transactions between these three entities. Sections 420 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are the Scheduled Offences (relatin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertain articles/vehicles/documents seized and properties & the bank accounts frozen by the respondent, as listed in the aforesaid OA No. 93 of 2017. The said OA No. 93 of 2017 was allowed vide order dated 12.09.2017. Aggrieved by the said order, appellants have filed the present appeals. 3. Ld. counsel for the appellant Urmil Gupta submitted that the appellant is the owner of the property at 47, Ashoka Park Extension, New Delhi-110026 vide the documents mentioned below: S. No. Date Particulars 1 05.12.1988 Conveyance Deed dated 05.12.1988 registered on 06.12.1988 in favour of the Urmil Gupta with the Sub-Registrar I, Delhi vide Document No.6166 in Additional Book no. I, Volume No. 4999, pages 152 to 155- Annexure A to the appeal 2. 13.10.1987 Registered General Power of Attorney dated 13.10.1987 executed by predecessor owner Smt. Champa Rani through Sant Lal in favour of Shri Yashpal Gupta 3. 07.10.1987 Agreement to Sell dated 07.10.1987 executed by Om Parkash Gupta and Sant Lal in favour of Urmil Gupta 4. 07.10.1987 Receipt issued by Om Parkash Gupta in favour of the deponent towards the sale consideration of the property 5. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e suit premises is mentioned as 500 sq. yards in the fraudulent sale deed, whereas it is actually 416.50 sq. yards. ii. The fraudulent Sale Deed does not mention even bare minimum boundaries. Thus, the fraudulent vendors and vendees did not even know the immediate precincts. iii. The fraudulent sale deed mentions this plot to be a part of the Revenue Village Basai Darapur, even on the date of its execution i.e. 14.12.2015. However, the truth is that this plot had been urbanized way back as a part of Khasra no. 233 vide Gazette Notification No.16 dated 21.04.1962. This Khasra no.233 was further approved to be subdivided by Resolution no. 1352 passed by MCD on 11.12.1962. This plot finds mention in this list allowing Sub-Division, wherein the size of the plot is shown to be reduced from 435.00 sq. yards to 416.50 sq. yards. for Both the Urbanization Notification and the MCD Resolution are Annexure E to this appeal. iv. Intentionally the fraudulent Sale Deed mentions the suit premises to be a part of Khasra no. 234, whereas it was never the case. It is humbly submitted that Khasra No. 234 never existed. v. The fraudulent Sale Deed does not mention a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing to be the owner of the two adjoining properties as under: i). Property bearing no. 47 out of total share (i.e. 378/94.2½) of Khasra No. 234, Village Basai Darapur, Delhi, now known as Ashok Park Extension, Punjabi Bagh, measuring 500 sq. yds. by way of Agreement to Sell dated 30.05.2019 executed by Mohd. Hussain Naqvi. ii). Property bearing no. 48 out of total share (i.e.378/94.5) of Khasra No. 234, Village Basai Darapur, Delhi now known as Ashok Park Extension, Punjabi Bagh, measuring 500 sq. yds. by way of Agreement to Sell dated 30.05.2019 executed by Aphasar Bano and Smt. Bintey Abbas. As per version of appellant Mahavir Singh Saini, as mentioned in the appeal, previously, Sayyad Ahmad Naqvi along with Irshad Ali were the owner of land measuring 1248 Sq. yards out of 3600 sq. yards in Khewat No. 144/423 Khasra No. 234 of Village Basaidarapur, Delhi vide sale deed dated 26.02.1959; and land measuring 380 sq. yards comprised in Khewat No. 144/423 Khasra No. 234 in Village Basaidarapur in the name of only Sayyad Ahmad Naqvi vide sale deed dated 04.03.1959, which are at page 1-3 & 4-6 respectively, in volume no. 3 of appeal paper book. Thus, Sayyad A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hi. Her ownership is yet to be decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. He argued that both the present appellants have no locus standi to claim the ownership over the said premises, as the said Civil Suit filed by Smt. Urmil Gupta is yet to be decided and Mahavir Singh Saini is not the registered owner of the attached property, on the basis of bogus agreement to sell dated 30.05.2019, in absence of any valid title in favour of his vendors. Prayer is accordingly made to dismiss the present appeals. 6. After hearing both the sides, we have given our thoughtful consideration to the same. The respondent ED has frozen the property comprised in Plot No.47 situated at Ashoka Park Extension in the area of Basai Darapur, New Delhi comprised in Khasra No. 234 on the basis of two sale deeds no.8502 & 8503 dated 10.12.2015 in favour of Amanpreet Singh Sodhi executed by Rifakat Ali & Mauhabbat Ali for area measuring 209 sq. mtr. (250 sq. yds.) each for sum of Rs. 48,30,000/- each for the two plots, totalling 418 sq. mtr. (500 sq. yds.) for sum of Rs. 96,60,000/-. However, admittedly only one cheque was got encashed by the said vendor due to dispute of ownership of the plots. Therefore, it is ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be paid within 120 days. There is nothing on record that the said three cheques totalling to Rs. 8,00,000/- were ever encashed and the balance payment of Rs. 91,50,000/- was ever made by the appellant to the alleged vendor Smt. Aphasar Bano and Smt. Bintey Abbas. Similarly, the agreement to sell in favour of Mahavir Singh Saini dated 30.05.2019 reflects the purchase of property bearing Plot no. 47 out of Khasra No. 234 for sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- and he paid sum of Rs. 50,000/- in cash on 30.05.2019 along with two cheques dated 10.06.2019 & 30.07.2019 for sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- & 5,00,000/- and the balance of Rs. 1,42,50,000/- to be paid within 120 days. There is nothing on record that the said two cheques totalling to Rs. 7,00,000/- were ever encashed and the balance payment of Rs. 1,42,50,000/- was ever made by the appellant to the alleged vendor Sh. Mohd. Hussain. There is nothing on record as to how the Plot No. 47 and 48 were assigned in Khasra No. 234. Moreover, appellant Mahavir Singh Saini has not acquired any ownership right in the said two plots till date for want of execution of sale deed in his favour. 8. Now coming to the appeal of appellant Smt. Urmil Gupta, she ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... West, Tis Hazari Courts Complex, Delhi- Annexure C to the appeal. The said petition for eviction was decreed vide order dated 24.08.2023. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of the eviction proceedings, two sub tenants pleaded that the property belonged to Amanpreet Singh Sodhi (accused) who had acquired the property through a purported Sale Deed dated 14.12.2015-Annexure D to the appeal. These Sale Deeds have been challenged by the appellant before Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide Case No. CS(OS)61 of 2020 titled Urmil Gupta v. Amanpreet Singh Sodhi & Others. As per appellant Urmil Gupta, despite service, Amanpreet Singh Sodhi (Accused) has not appeared before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the case has been proceeded ex parte against him. Relevant orders were enclosed with appeal by the appellant. As per contention of the appellant Urmil Gupta, the purported Sale Deeds dated 14.12.2015 in favour of Amanpreet Singh Sodhi are fraudulent Sale Deeds due to the following reasons: i. The size of the suit premises is mentioned as 500 sq. yards in the fraudulent sale deed, whereas it is actually 416.50 sq. yards. ii. The fraudulent Sale Deed does not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....963 of the Standing Committee of MCD pertaining to Ashoka Park Extension Annexure-E regarding change in the size and shape of the plots at page 9, wherein plot no. 47 is shown reduced from 435 sq. yds. to 416.5 sq. yds. and plot no. 48 is shown as reduced from 408.4 sq. yds to 351.2 sq. yds. iii) Appellant Urmil Gupta also filed layout plan showing the sizes and areas of various plots of Ashoka Park Extension. In this particular site plan, the area of plot no.47 is mentioned as 416.5 sq. yds. The area of plot no.48 is reflected as 351.2 sq. yds. Now perusal of the Sale Deed in favour of appellant Smt. Urmil Gupta reflects that she purchased the plot no. 47, Ashoka Park Extension, Basaidarapur, measuring 416.5 sq. yds comprised in Khasra No. 232 and 233 vide sale deed dated 05.12.1988 from Smt. Champa Rani through her GPA. Smt. Champa Rani was the registered owner of the plot vide sale deed no. 4093 dated 28.12.1960 registered in office of Sub-Registrar Delhi. The precincts of plot no. 47 are also mentioned in the Sale Deed executed in the favour Smt. Urmil Gupta, as North Road 40ft; South Plot No.49; East Gali; West Property No.48. The directions of the plots mentioned ....