TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 251
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....60 (in short "IPC"). It was on a complaint of Smt. Neha Manohar against the accused, Shri Mukesh Modi and Shri Rahul Modi alleging denial of withdrawal of the investment made by her in various schemes of the Cooperative Society. It was alleged that the Cooperative Society had diverted the funds of the small investors to their own companies in the guise of loans. The diversion of the funds was to the companies functioning in the real-estate sector and for that reason, the investors were denied withdrawal of their due benefits under the schemes and thereby a case for offence under Section 420 of the IPC, apart from other offences were alleged. The SOG had conducted the investigation and filed an interim charge-sheet on 20.07.2019 against 14 accused for different predicate offences under the IPC and Section 5 of the Prize Chits Money Circulation Scheme (Banning Act), 1978 and Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 3. The respondent recorded the ECIR finding a predicate offence and initiated an independent investigation under the Prevention and Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( in short "the Act of 2002") and in the meanwhile the SOG, Rajasthan found that 99.68% of the total....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red into a Joint Development Agreement with the payment of Rs. 2.13 Crore. The appellant said to have incurred an amount of Rs. 10,97,52,058/- Crore towards the development of the project. At the time of entering into the Land Development Agreement, no FIR was existing against the accused and otherwise the appellant paid the initial amount of Rs. 2.13 Crore and accordingly, M/s PIPL handed over the peaceful and vacant possession of the land to the appellant but on account of provisional attachment of the land, for which appellant entered into the Joint Development Agreement, though only for 14 Acres out of 24.7 Acre of village Pataudi, Gurugram, Haryana, appellant company is restrained to raise construction. The property of 24.7 acres of land has been provisionally attached towards the proceeds value of Rs. 28.35 Crore. The provisional attachment of the land for which the appellant entered into the Land Development Agreement has been confirmed and aggrieved by the aforesaid, this appeal has been preferred. Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant: 6. Ld. Counsel submits that the appellant company had entered into a Joint Development Agreement with M/s PIPL under bona fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1. The proceedings arose from FIR No.24/2018 dated 28.12.2018 registered by the SOG, Rajasthan, against the office bearers of the Cooperative Society, alleging diversion of investors' funds through various companies and entities. Pursuant thereto, the Directorate of Enforcement recorded an ECIR and passed PAO No.09/JP20/2019 dated 07.10.2019, followed by an Original Complaint under Section 5(5) of the Act of 2002, which was confirmed vide order dated 31.03.2020. According to the respondent, an amount of Rs. 82.15 Crores was disbursed to M/s PIPL out of Cooperative's Society funds, against which Rs. 27.80 Crores was repaid, resulting in alleged proceeds of crime of Rs. 54,33,84,142/- in the hands of M/s PIPL. It was further alleged that Rs. 30,67,49,775/- out of the said amount was utilised for purchase of 24.7 acres of land, including the 14-acre of land given for the project in reference. The appellant contends that, even as per the respondent's own calculation, the alleged value attributable to the 14 acres is approximately Rs. 17,38,38,117/-. The appellant has independent rights under the Joint Development Agreement to the extent of 50% and had further agreed to purchase residen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s protection of the contractual deed entered in good faith and has suffered quantifiable loss despite taking reasonable precautions. 17. It is lastly submitted that the appellant is willing to deposit/pay approximately Rs. 32 crore, representing the value of the share of M/s PIPL, which is stated to be higher than the proceeds of crime attributed to the concerned land parcel. Reliance is placed upon the order dated 30.06.2025 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Joint Director v. Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 265/2024 for substitution of attached property in the interest of homebuyers. 18. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the attachment, to the extent of the appellant's legitimate 50% share, deserves to be set aside, or alternatively, the property may be released/substituted upon payment or deposit of an amount equivalent to or exceeding the proceeds of crime attributable to the concerned property, thereby protecting the interests of the appellant as well as the bona fide homebuyers. 19. The appellant did not raise any other argument than referred above and close his arguments. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 23. The challenge to the order causing provisional attachment of the property and its confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority has been made by the appellant company alleged to be third-party to the transaction and otherwise not named as an accused, rather, bona fide entity entered into the Joint Development Agreement for 14 Acres of land. 24. I find that the appellant has filed this appeal after filing another appeal earlier to challenge the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority so as the provisional attachment order caused by the respondent. The earlier appeal preferred by the appellant bearing Appeal No. FPA-PMLA-3696/JP/2020 was disposed of by this Tribunal along with the appeals preferred by the homebuyers with a direction to the Enforcement Directorate to consider the representation of genuine homebuyers. The appellant was not a homebuyer but a developer of the land alleged to have entered into the registered Sale Deed and was noted in the earlier order. However, while pressing the present appeal, Ld. Counsel for the appellant could not refer the registered Sale Deed in favour of the appellant company for purchase of the land. Ld. Counsel for the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sued independently by the homebuyers, if the right and title exist in their favour. It is for the reason that in the earlier round of litigation, the homebuyers were given liberty to crystalize their right and title in the land. It was with the liberty to make a representation to the Enforcement Directorate to analyze their claims and thereby the appellant cannot have a claim as against 51 plots said to have sold by it, as per its statement itself. The appellant company has realized the amount on the receipt of the consideration on sale of 51 plots and thereby the issue would remain in reference to the unsold plots out of the share of the appellant because there exists no document to show payment of consideration to the landholder for purchase of their share out of the developed land, as agreed between the parties. 28. In view of the above, the challenge to the provisional attachment for the entire property under Joint Development Agreement would not sustain. The appellant has shown willingness to deposit an amount of Rs. 32 Crore, representing the value of the share of M/s PIPL. The effort of the appellant seems to challenge the provisional attachment of the property for which ....