TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1707
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PA-PMLA-510/GGM/2025, MP-PMLA-974/GGM/2025 Stay FPA-PMLA-462/GGM/2025, MP-PMLA-1008/GGM/2025 Stay FPA-PMLA-471/GGM/2025, MP-PMLA-5181/GGM/2025 Exemp. MP-PMLA-1010/GGM/2025 Exemp., MP-PMLA-1009/GGM/2025 Stay FPA-PMLA-472/GGM/2025, MP-PMLA-1036/GGM/2025 Exemp. MP-PMLA-1035/GGM/2025 Stay FPA-PMLA-480/GGM/2025, MP-PMLA-4785/GGM/2025 Misc MP-PMLA-4784/GGM/2025 Misc. MP-PMLA-3363/GGM/2025 Exemp. MP-PMLA-3362/GGM/2025 Stay FPA-PMLA-1546/GGM/2025, MP-PMLA-3853/GGM/2025 Exemp. MP-PMLA-3852/GGM/2025 Stay FPA-PMLA-1626/GGM/2025 JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI (CHAIRMAN) For the Appellant : Mr. Vikash Pahwa, Adv., Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Adv. Mr. Bakul Jain, Adv., Ms. Priyal Jain, Adv. (sr. no. 1 to 3) Ms. Chandrika, Adv for Ms. Deepali (sr. no. 4 & 6 & 12) Ms. Bina Gupta, Adv. Ms. Anushka Rawal, Adv. Ms. Himani Singh, Adv. Ms. Kashika Gera, Adv. (sr. no. 5 & 9) Mr. Harsh Yadav, Adv. (sr. no. 10) For the Respondent : Ms. Anuja Pethia, Adv. And Ms. Kshirja Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Amisha Aggarwal, Adv. ORDER By a batch of appeals, a challenge has been made to the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order ('PAO') dated 06....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... crores; and FY 2020-21: Rs. 503.09 crores. The total proceeds of crime from misappropriated plot buyers' funds amount to Rs. 503.09 crores. (c) M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd. began accepting funds through MoUs with prospective plot buyers for the development of 466 plots in Gurugram. However, instead of using these funds for the intended real estate projects, they were diverted to related parties, primarily Sh. Amit Katyal and other Krrish group companies. This diversion is documented in the audited financial statements, and the company did not report any revenue from plot sales up to FY 2021-22, suggesting a deliberate intent to defraud the buyers. (d) The misappropriated funds were invested into shell companies and other real estate ventures, benefiting the promoters of M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Sh. Amit Katyal invested significantly in M/s Mahadev Infratech Pvt. Ltd., a shell company, using funds diverted from M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd., M/s Mahadev Infratech Pvt. Ltd., in turn, invested over Rs. 205 crores into M/s One Transworks Colombo Pvt. Ltd., a real estate project in Sri Lanka. (e) Funds were further channelled into two Krrish group c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resaid, separate appeals have been filed by the appellants. Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the appellants: 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority is in ignorance of the submissions made by the appellant and thereby a perverse finding has been recorded. The Adjudicating Authority ignored that the FIRs registered against the appellants from the year 2013 to till 2022 were either quashed by the High Court or a discharge order was passed. It includes quashing of the summoning order in relation to one FIR and quashing of the cognizance order of the predicate offence in reference to other FIR. In fact, no FIR pertaining to the predicate offence was pending on or before the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Yet, ignoring the fact aforesaid, the provisional attachment of the properties was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and therefore the impugned order deserves to be set-aside on the aforesaid ground itself. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellants, further, submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has taken into consideration the FIR No. 439 of 2024, which was registered subsequent to the recording of the E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omplainant and in that regard, it remained successful not only to settle the matter but based on the aforesaid, even in the FIRs were quashed or interference in the proceedings were made. Therefore, even going by the intent of the appellants, this Tribunal should cause interference in the impugned order as the appellant is intended to settle the issues raised by the complainant which, otherwise, is essentially of civil nature. The prayer was accordingly made to cause interference in the impugned order. Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent: 8. Ld. Counsel for the respondent vehemently contested the appeals on all the grounds raised by Ld. Counsel for the appellants. Elaborate arguments were made and would be referred while recording finding on each issue raised by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants. It is to avoid repetition of the same facts and for the sake of brevity. Findings of the Tribunal: 9. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. In the brief facts of the case, I have given reference to the FIRs registered against the accused from time to time and the allegations therein. It is a fact that 8 FIRs were r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....could not have been considered by the Adjudicating Authority for confirmation of the PAO passed prior to the FIR No. 439 of 2024. In fact, there is no reference to the said FIR or the allegation made therein in the Original Complaint as well as in the PAO. It was not mentioned even while recording "reasons to believe". Thus, the fact aforesaid could not have been ignored by the Adjudicating Authority to confirm the provisional attachment of the properties. 11. Ld. Counsel for the appellants, further, submitted that the FIR No. 439 of 2024 was otherwise, clubbed with the earlier FIR No. 30 of 2019 where an interference in the cognizance order for the offence under Section 420 of IPC was caused by the District and Sessions Judge vide its order dated 04.06.2025. The argument was that with the clubbing of the FIR No. 439 of 2024 with FIR No. 30 of 2019, the allegation for commission of offence under Section 420 of IPC would not stand. I am not in agreement with the argument aforesaid. It may be true that the Hon'ble Apex Court has clubbed two FIRs for the purpose of investigation by applying ratio propounded in the case of T.T. Antony versus State of Kerala reported in (2001) 6 SCC ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tablish the scheduled offence necessarily impacts the proceedings under the PMLA and the consequential attachment, are relied upon and are set out below. I may refer the judgement in the case of Rajiv Chanana v. Dy. Director, Directorate of Enforcement (2014 SCC OnLine Del 4889). Para 19 of the judgment is quoted thus:- "19. It necessarily follows that the attachment of a property is liable to be vacated if the existence of a scheduled offence is negated. Clearly, attachment of proceeds of crime cannot continue if the alleged scheduled offence is not established after trial. Given the scheme of the PMLA, attachment of property (proceeds of crime) must be lifted if it is found that the scheduled offence, on the basis of which attachment was effected, does not exist. In absence of a scheduled offence, the question of existence of any proceeds thereof, do not arise." 14. I may, further, refer the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Prakash Industries Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforecement [2022 SCC OnLine Del 2087]. Para 9 of the judgment is quoted hereunder: "9. This Court thus comes to the definite conclusion, that while the offense of money laundering ....