TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1076
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td.(TPTPL), Shri Abhay Narendra Lodha, Director of M/s TPTPL, Shri Shishir Shivaji Hiray, Director of M/s TPTPL, Shri Harshraj Shantilal Bagmar, Director of M/s TPTPL and many others and even officers of the State Bank of India (SBI) for offence under Section 120-B, 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The CBI caused investigation and filed the charge sheet against 20 entities/individuals. 3. The respondents recorded ECIR on 31.03.2020 finding a predicate offence. The amount involved in the commission of crime was found to be of Rs. 56.81 Crores. It was alleged that Shri Abhay Narendra Lodha, the Chief Promoter of the Topworth Group, established various manufacturing and trading companies. He was looking after financial and marketing matters, including payment and receipt of the money. The accused obtained advances and credit facilities from the banks. It was with the intention to layer the funds and for that purpose shell companies were incorporated by Shri Abhay Narendra Lodha under the control of Topworth Group of companies. 4. For the credit facilities taken from the SBI, M/s TPTPL was required to submit the necessary doc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther submitted that the provisional attachment has been caused presuming Shri Abhay Narendra Lodha to be the owner of the property under auction. The property was not purchased by him but was purchased by M/s. Nandana Metals & Mining Ltd. in public auction. The payment of consideration was made after obtaining the loan and out of the saving amount of the company. The purchase of property in public auction was not after involving the amount earned by Shri Abhay Narendra Lodha. The respondents failed to consider that the property could have been attached only when the proceeds of crime is used for the purpose and not when the consideration was paid largely after obtaining loan. Thus, on the aforesaid ground also, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants further gave framework of the case in reference to the arguments of the respondents. It was submitted that the provisional attachment of the property of the appellant company M/s. Nandana Metals & Mining Ltd. has been caused under misconception of the facts and even in ignorance that consideration was paid after taking bank loan and out of savings. The respondent could not have presumed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the counsel for the appellants. It would be referred while recording the finding on each issue raised by the appellants to avoid repetition of facts and for the sake of brevity. Finding of the Tribunal: 14. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record carefully. 15. The facts on record demonstrate that an FIR was lodged by the CBI against M/s TPTPL, Shri Abhay Narendra Lodha and many others finding a predicate offence. The impugned order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the provisional attachment of the property situated at Ceejay House, Shiv Sagar Estate, Worli, Mumbai. The same property has been attached in the name of Shri Abhay Narendra Lodha and M/s. Nandana Metals & Mining Ltd. The provisional attachment of the property in the hands of M/s. Nandana Metals & Mining Ltd. has been caused presuming layering and diversion of funds by Shri Abhay Narendra Lodha for his own benefit and the benefit of other entities. The office area under attachment was valued at Rs. 15,28,01,988/- in the name of Shri Abhay Narendra Lodha and the same property was valued for Rs. 15,28,01,988/- in the hands of the company. It is mainly o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of loan and saving have not been qualified as the proceeds of crime. It is a fact that the appellant company had taken loan for purchase of the property, therefore, in no circumstances purchase of the property can be said to be out of the proceeds of crime. 17. I may further refer to the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents who has made much emphasis that the appellant company M/s. Nandana Metals & Mining Ltd. is basically run by the accused Abhay Narendra Lodha and, therefore, there remains justification for provisional attachment of the property. Even if the argument of the counsel for the respondent is looked into that the overall control on the appellant company is of Abhay Narendra Lodha, the fact would remain as to whether the property under provisional attachment has been purchased out of the proceeds of crime. It is necessary to indicate that one is required to show the source for purchase of property which has clearly been defined by the appellant in reference to the bank loan and through savings. It was not out of the proceeds of crime. Thus, the provisional attachment in the hands of the appellant company is not proper. If the respondents were really s....