Disposed

FPA-PMLA-1474/MUM/2016 of United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

ATFP14 Oct 2016FPA-PMLA-1474/MUM/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for compliance with a previous order, the Tribunal addressed disputes over the supply of witness statements and documents for a provisional attachment order. It directed the adjudicating authority to consider complaints regarding incomplete documents raised by the appellant during its reply and the subsequent hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed that objections regarding alleged non-supply of complete statements and documents be raised before the Adjudicating Authority during the reply and personal hearing, to be decided in accordanc

FPA-PMLA-1474/MUM/2016 of United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd. v/s… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2016)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Decision: …10.2016

¶3

MP-PMLA-2829/MUM/2016

¶4

In FPA-PMLA-1474/MUM/2016

¶5

United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd. … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, … Respondent Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

¶6

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶7

For the appellant	: Sh. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate
	Sh. Ankur Saigal, Advocate
	Sh. Munjaal Bhatt, Advocate Sh. Himanshu Satija, Advocate
For the respondent	: Shri Rajeev Awasthi, Advocate
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	: CHAIRMAN
SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA	: MEMBER
SHRI ANAND KISHORE	: MEMBER

¶8

JUGEMENT JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN

¶9

MP-PMLA-2829/MUM/2016 in FPA-PMLA-1474/MUM/2016

¶10

The miscellaneous application has been filed seeking compliance of the order dated 14.10.2016 passed by this Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal”) disposing

¶11

MP-PMLA-2829/MUM/2016 in FPA-PMLA-1474/MUM/2016

¶12

Page 1 of 6

¶13

of the appeal No. FPA-PMLA-1474/MUM/2016 with a direction to the respondent to supply statement of witnesses and documents tendered by such witnesses relied upon in the present Provisional Attachment Order (P.A.O.) and original complaint and not already supplied.

¶14

The applicant has contended in the application that the respondent has failed to comply fully with the directions given by this Tribunal in its aforementioned order dated 14.10.2016. It is stated that subsequent to the Hon‟ble Tribunal‟s Order dated 14.10.2016 and on receipt of e-mail dated 20^th October, 2016 from the respondent and as conveyed later during that day, the applicant‟s representative was present in the respondent‟s office at Mumbai on 20^th October, 2016 and 21^st October, 2016 at the desired time to receive the documents to be supplied by the respondent in terms of the Tribunal‟s said Order. The documents supplied on 21.10.2016 were loose copies running into approximately 2000 pages and without an index and it was not possible to ascertain then and there whether the complete documents in terms of directions given in the order dated 14^th October, 2016 had been supplied. Thereafter, having categorized and arranged the documents statement wise, the applicant found that the directions given in the said order were not fully complied with and that neither the complete relevant statements had been supplied nor the full documents as directed to be given, had been supplied. In the circumstances, a letter dated 24^th October, 2016 was addressed by the applicant to the respondent requesting to provide all the statements and documents in compliance of the Hon‟ble Tribunal‟s Order.

¶15

In Para-4 of the application, the applicant has given the description of the statements of different witnesses not supplied in terms of the order of the Tribunal which are sought through the application. In para-5 and 6 of the application, the description of the documents tendered during the course of MP-PMLA-2829/MUM/2016 Page 2 of 6 in FPA-PMLA-1474/MUM/2016

¶16

recording of the statements of witnesses namely Ms. Mythili Balasubrmani, Shri A. Ragunathan, Shri Ravi Nedungadi and Shri Gunaseelan Thangarajan which were required to be supplied to the appellant in terms of the Tribunal‟s dated 14.10.2016 but not supplied, was given. In Para-7, certain documents which were incomplete and with pages missing and in Para-8 certain documents in which the copies supplied were not proper or were illegible, was mentioned. A copy of the Table in respect of the statements/documents provided by the respondent on 21.10.2016 was also annexed with the application as Annexure-3. It has been prayed in the application that the respondent be directed to comply with the Hon‟ ble Tribunals order dated 14^th October, 2016 fully and to supply the statements / documents set out in paras 4 to 8 of the application. It was also prayed that a date may be given 10 days after the respondent complies with the Tribunal‟s order dated 14^th October, 2016.

¶17

During the hearing of the application held on 26.10.2016 Shri Dayan Krishnan, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has further elaborated on the contents of Paras 4 to 8 of the application to bring out why it was contended by them that the Tribunal‟s order dated 14^th October, 2016 had not been complied with by the respondent and prayed for directions from the Tribunal directing the respondents to supply the remaning statements/documents as mentioned in the application. He also stated that there were two broad categories of statements/documents which were now being sought so as to comply with the Tribunal‟s order dated 14^th October, 2016 namely, the first category being where the respondent was not objecting to supply the documents in terms of the Tribunal‟s order but in respect of which there is a difference of opinion between the two sides regarding their actual supply. The second category comprises of statements/documents not supplied where the respondent contended that these were not covered under the Tribunal‟s order. He submitted that while a joint inspection of the statement/documents in possession of the respondent could be directed to be MP-PMLA-2829/MUM/2016 Page 3 of 6 in FPA-PMLA-1474/MUM/2016

¶18

held at Mumbai later during the course of the day in respect of those falling under the first category in which representative/counsel on behalf of the appellant and that of the respondent would be present, so that the missing/ incomplete statements and illegible/dim/missing documents could be supplied during the course of the inspection. In respect of the second category, the Hon‟ble Tribunal may be inclined to call for the case records and decide after perusal of the related statements/documents whether these were required to be supplied in terms of its order dated 14^th October, 2016.

¶19

Responding to the above submissions, Shri Rajiv Awasthi, Advocate and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposed the application and the prayers made therein. It was his submission that the copies of the required statements/documents relied upon in the present Provisional Attachment Order (P.A.O.) and original complaint which were required to be supplied to the appellant/applicant in terms of the Hon‟ble Tribunal‟s Order dated 14^th October, 2016 have been supplied to the applicant/appellant on 21.10.2016. In support of his submission, he has referred to the Table at Annexure-3 of the application wherein the manner of compliance with the Hon‟ble Tribunal‟s order dated 14.10.2016 in respect of supply of copies of statements of various witnesses and copies of documents tendered during recording of such statements has been mentioned in detail. It is his submission that copies of statements/documents that were required to be supplied to the applicant /appellant in terms of the Tribunal order dated 14.10.2016 have already been supplied and the present application is nothing but by way of dilatory tactics to delay the adjudication which in terms of the provision of PMLA is required to be completed in a fixed time of 180 days of the date of the P.A.O.

¶20

We have considered the rival contentions. At the outset, the following extracts from the Tribunal‟s order dated 14.10.2016 may be referred to in this context:

¶21

MP-PMLA-2829/MUM/2016 in FPA-PMLA-1474/MUM/2016

¶22

Page 4 of 6

¶23

30. -------- “We are of the considered view that once the documents are referred or likely to be referred while passing the order after considering the reply and taking into account all the relevant material placed on record, under sub-Section (2) of Section 8 of the PMLA, the same are necessary to be supplied, even though some of the documents are already in the possession of the accused person. As far as further/other attachment of properties are concerned, where the investigation is ongoing, the appellants are not entitled to any document and part of the statement(s) of witnesses recorded during the investigation if it does not relate to the present P.A.O. and O.C. Only the documents referred to in the statement of witnesses in relation to the attachment of properties as covered in the present P.A.O. and relied on in the present original complaint are to be supplied.

¶24

31. In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the prayers made in the abovementioned appeals are partly allowed by setting-aside the impugned orders dated 8.9.2016. The limited prayer is granted by directing the respondent to supply the documents and copies of statements of witnesses recorded by the investigation in the present original complaint and in respect of attachment of certain properties which are the subject matter of the complaint which are in its possession, to the appellants within a period of 10 days from today. It is agreed by the learned counsel for the appellants that they will file the reply within 10 days thereafter and would not seek any adjournment in the matter before the Adjudicating Authority so that the Adjudicating Authority would be at liberty to decide the show-cause notice issued within the time prescribed under the Act.

¶25

32. The present appeals are accordingly disposed of with these directions.”-------

¶26

It is the admitted position of both sides that subsequent to the Tribunal‟s order dated 14.10.2016, certain statements/documents have been supplied by the Respondent‟s to the appellant/applicant on 21.10.2016. However, there is a difference of opinion between the two sides as regards the question whether the order dated 14^th October, 2016 of this Tribunal has been fully complied by

¶27

MP-PMLA-2829/MUM/2016 in FPA-PMLA-1474/MUM/2016

¶28

Page 5 of 6

¶29

the respondent or not. Both sides have made equally persuasive arguments in support of their respective contentions.

¶30

We observe that the adjudication pending before the Adjudicating Authority is a time bound matter and the P.A.O. ceases to have effect if not decided/confirmed by the adjudicating authority within a period of 180 days from the date of the PAO. Taking an overall view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by both sides, as well as the scheme of attachment, adjudication and criminal proceedings provided under the PMLA, it is directed that the applicant/appellant may file their reply before the adjudicating authority within the period as per the directions given in this Tribunal‟s Order dated 14.10.2016 and that they could raise their objections and pleas with regard to the alleged non-supply of complete statements / documents etc. in terms of the Tribunal‟s Order dated 14.10.2016 in the course of such reply and in the personal hearing before the adjudicating authority and the adjudicating authority is directed to consider the objections/pleas of the applicant in this regard and to decide the same in accordance with law while adjudicating the case.

¶31

The application is disposed of with the above directions.

¶32

Copy of the order be provided „dasti‟ to both sides.

¶33

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶34

(Kaushal Srivastava)

Member

(Anand Kishore)

Member

New Delhi, …… October, 2016 „K‟

¶39

MP-PMLA-2829/MUM/2016 in FPA-PMLA-1474/MUM/2016

¶40

Page 6 of 6

FPA-PMLA-1474/MUM/2016 of United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1474/MUM/2016 of United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases