Allowed

FPA-PMLA-1046/HYD/2015 of Cyberabad Hitech Integrated Township Development Corp Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad

ATFP12 Oct 2017FPA-PMLA-1046/HYD/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal allowed the applicant/appellant's prayer for an eight-week extension to deposit funds as a fixed deposit to substitute attached property, imposing costs and directing the respondent to specify the account details for the deposit.

What did the court decide?

Extension granted for eight weeks to deposit FDR; costs of Rs 30,000 imposed; respondent directed to issue letter with account details.

FPA-PMLA-1046/HYD/2015 of Cyberabad Hitech Integrated Township… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3314/HYD/2017 (Misc) MP- PMLA-1969/HYD/2015 (STAY) FPA-PMLA-1046/HYD/2015

¶3

Cyberabad Hitech Integrated … Applicant/Appellant Township Development Corp Pvt. Ltd.

¶4

Versus

¶5

The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad

¶6

… Respondent

¶7

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶8

For the appellant : Shri Yogesh Ravi, Advocate For the respondent : Shri S.A. Saud, Advocate

¶9

CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI ANAND KISHORE : MEMBER

¶10

ORDER 12.10.2017

¶11

MP-PMLA-3314/HYD/2017 (Misc)

¶12

On 5^th May, 2017 in the application filed by the appellant the

¶13

following order was passed:-

¶14

“No reply has been filed by the respondent. Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf Mr. S.A. Saud learned Counsel for the respondent and submits that the instructions have not been received from the respondent. The prayer made in the application is orally challenged on behalf of the respondent.

¶15

The present application has been filed by the appellant seeking the interim relief by way of directing the substitution of the attached property namely “2.57 Acres of Land along with the built up area in 1.48 Ac. (14196 SFT) at Sy. No. 1009, Phase-III, Kukatpally Housing Board, Ranga Reddy District.”, attached as value equivalent of proceeds of crime by Respondent, valued at Rs.3,85,50,000/-, with an FDR of Rs.3,85,50,000/- or similar valuable security which this Tribunal may deem valid in the circumstances of the case. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred to Para 24 of the Complaint where the details of the proceeds of crime has been transferred by the respondent. Para 24(c) reads as under:

¶16

“Land of 2.57 acre and out which land of 1.48 Acre and Builtup Area Of around 14196 SFT of PEB Structure at Survey No.1009, Phase-XIII, Kukatpally Housing Board, Ranga

¶17

FPA-PMLA-1046/HYD/2015

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

Reddy District, as detailed in the lease deed 27.12.2013 between M/s Cyberabad Hitech Integrated Township Development Corporation Private Limited, Hyderabad and M/s 3N Hospitality, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, totally valued at Rs.3,85,50,000/- which is equivalent to part of the „Proceeds of Crime‟ which were laundered by Shri I. Syam Prasad Reddy through his companies.”

¶20

Even the Impugned Order Page No. 4 thereof, is having the similar details. It is therefore clear that the property has been attached as value equivalent to the alleged proceeds of crime involved in this case.

¶21

In view of the said facts and circumstances, the prayer in the present application is allowed by modifying the Impugned Order to the effect that the appellant/applicant should deposit a sum of Rs. 3,85,50,000/- by way of FDR in the name of respondent within two weeks from today. Once the said deposit is made, the property attached in the related P.A.O. and confirmed in the Impugned Order will stand modified to that extent. The merit of the appeal will be decided in due course. The said deposit will be made by the appellant without prejudice to the rights to contest the matter on merits. The amount deposited and interest accrued thereon shall be subject to the outcome of the appeal. It is clarified that in view of the order passed today, there would be no attachment of the above mentioned property viz. land of 2.57 acres in question with built up area in 1.48 Acre (14196 sq.ft). However, the said order will become operative only once the amount of deposit viz. FDR for Rs. 3,85,50,000/- in the name of the respondent is made by the appellant/applicant with the respondent. Order be given “dasti” to both the parties.”

¶22

The said order could not be complied by the appellant who has now filed the another application seeking eight weeks time to comply the said order as explain in the application in para 2, 3 & 4 of the application. The said para are read as under:-

¶23

“2. The appellant had previously moved an application seeking substitution/modification of the provisional attachment order which was allowed by this Hon‟ble Tribunal vide order dated 05.05.2017. However, the copy of the order was made available and communicated to the appellant on 19.05.2017. Thereafter, the appellant took steps to arrange the funds and obtained an FRD for the subject amount on 01.06.2017. The confirmation letter by the Bank has been submitted to the Respondent on 06.06.2017. However, the same was rejected by the respondent as the same was not produced within two weeks are directed in the order dated 05.05.2017.The respondent also objected to the name and manner in which the banks confirmation letter was given.

¶24

3. The applicant is ready and willing to comply with the exact manner and name in which the Respondent seeks to

¶25

FPA-PMLA-1046/HYD/2015

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

have the FDR. However, in view of the lapse of time, this instant application is being moved to seek extension of time from this Hon‟ble Tribunal to comply with the order dated 05.05.2017.

¶28

4. It is further submitted that this Hon‟ble Tribunal has made it clear in other order dated 05.05.2017 that the attached property will be substituted only after acceptance of FDR. Therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the Respondent as the attachment continues till the FRD is accepted by the Respondent.

¶29

In circumstances above stated, it is humbly submitted that the applicant may be granted at a time of eight weeks from the date of order in this application so as to submit an FDR in manner and name as required by the Respondent and pass such other order as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶30

The reply of the above mentioned application has been filed by the respondent in MP-PMLA-3314/HYD/2017 (Misc.). As a matter of fact in the said reply the respondent has challenged the validity of the order passed on 5^th May, 2017 and discussed the matter on merit by giving various reasons not to extend the time. We have heard the said application. Learned counsel for the respondent has confirmed to us that the order passed by this tribunal has not been challenged by the respondent. Our main concern at this stage is about the compliance of order dated 5^th May, 2017 rather to allow the respondent re-agitate the same very issue on merit.

¶31

The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant is that order passed by us on 5^th May, 2017 was communicated to the appellant on 19^th May, 2017 and accordingly the appellant took the steps to arrange funds and obtain the FDR on 1^st June, 2017 for the said subject amount. The confirmation letter by the bank was submitted to the respondent on 6^th June, 2017. However, the same was not accepted by the respondent on the ground that the appellant did not deposit the amount within two weeks as directed in the order dated 5^th May, 2017.

¶32

FPA-PMLA-1046/HYD/2015

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

Since the said amount of FDR was not accepted by the respondent, the appellant filed the present application on 15^th September, 2017 seeking eight weeks time to comply the order and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the appellant was given one final opportunity to deposit the amount by FDR. It is submitted that in view of reasons stated in the application, the prayer is granted. It is evident that there is a delay in filing the present application, the same ought to have been filed once and the respondent has refused to accept the FDR. But the fresh application has been filed after couple of months.

¶35

Under these circumstances, the prayer of this application is allowed subject to the cost of Rs. 30,000/- which shall be deposited by the appellant with the respondent within two weeks once the respondent complies with the direction issued by us in the following para.

¶36

“The respondent is requested to issue the letter-informing the appellant in which name the FDR is to be prepared. The earlier FDR if lying with respondent be returned to the counsel for the appellant so that the Fresh FDR be prepared by the appellant through bank in the name of authority concerned in order to compliance with the order.”

¶37

The M.P is accordingly disposed of.

¶38

Copy of the order be given „dasti‟ to both the parties.

¶39

(Justice Manmohan Singh)

Chairman

(Anand Kishore)

Member

New Delhi, 12^th October, 2017 ‘d’

¶44

FPA-PMLA-1046/HYD/2015

¶45

Page 4 of 4

FPA-PMLA-1046/HYD/2015 of Cyberabad Hitech Integrated Township Development Corp Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1046/HYD/2015 of Cyberabad Hitech Integrated Township Development Corp Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad

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