TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1284
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a challenge has been made to the order dated 14.01.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order ("PAO") dated 20.07.2020. Brief facts of the case: 2. It is a case where number of FIRs were registered with the Uttar Pradesh Police for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against M/s Garvit Innovative Promoters Ltd. and its promoter, Shri Sanjay Bhati and other Directors. The FIRs were registered on the complaints of many individual persons in respect to the alleged offences of fraud and forgery of valuable securities etc. It was for the deeds of the promoters of M/s Garvit Innovative Promoters Ltd. apart from other Directors, namely, Shri Raje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds, rather, it is alleged to be a victim in the hands of one of the accused who agreed to sell the property in question. An Agreement for Sale was executed on 17.12.2020 between Amanecer Green Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Envirotech Pvt. Ltd. ( in short "M/s Mars") where M/s Mars agreed to sell the property referred to above for a consideration of Rs. 10,17,00,000/-. It is with the further agreement that in case of default by M/s Mars, the purchase of the property would be on a reduced consideration of Rs. 9 Crore. There were various other conditions in the Agreement for Sale which was executed after a Pubic Notice in the leading newspapers was published calling for the objection. 5. M/s Mars defaulted in execution of Sale Deed in terms of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned order. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred. It is with the statement that the amount lying with the High Court of Bombay may be taken in substitution of the property because a sum of Rs. 6,95,62,552/- is still lying with the Court Receiver appointed by the High Court of Bombay. In the background of the fact given above, the prayer was made to release the property by causing interference in the impugned order. Arguments of Ld. Counsel for the respondent: 7. Ld. Counsel for the respondent raised objection to the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the appellant. It was submitted that the property under provisional attachment belongs to the accused company involving in commission of crime. The provisional attachment was ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erately suppressed the provisional attachment of the property from the appellant. When M/s Mars failed to execute a Sale Deed, the Arbitration proceedings pursuant to the Agreement for Sale were initiated. An Arbitral Award was passed in favour of the appellant. M/s Mars did not inform about the provisional attachment of the property even during the arbitration proceedings and subsequently even during pendency of application under Section 34 and an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 1996. The matter travelled upto the Apex Court. The SLP preferred by M/s Mars was dismissed. In the SLP also, information about the provisional attachment of the property was not disclosed. The appellant approached ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y in question has been registered in the name of the appellant pursuant to the order by the High Court of the Bombay after an Arbitral Award followed by an application under Section 34 and an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It was followed by dismissal of the SLP by the Apex Court. 12. It is with further opinion that M/s Mars has suppressed the material facts from both sides. It did not disclose the provisional attachment of property to the Arbitral Tribunal, High Court of Bombay and the Apex Court and even while contesting PMLA proceedings and pursuing its own appeal before the Tribunal. The property was thus conveyed and registered in the name of the appellant. 13. In the light of the peculiar ....