Disposed

FPA-PMLA-1579/HYD/2016 of Bharati Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad

ATFP12 Jan 2017FPA-PMLA-1579/HYD/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant sought interim relief to roll over interest on encashed fixed deposits under PMLA attachment. Court noted factual difference from a previous case involving non-encashed deposits and listed matter for further submissions on undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Court directed appellant to file undertaking to deposit fresh fixed deposits as security before next hearing; granted no specific relief on rolling over of existing interest.

FPA-PMLA-1579/HYD/2016 of Bharati Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-2979/HYD/216 (Stay) MP-PMLA-1980/HYD/2016 (exem)

¶3

FPA-PMLA-1579/HYD/2016

¶4

Bharati Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant/Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad … Respondent

¶7

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶8

For the appellant : Shri Rajiv Nayar, Advocate For the respondent : Shri S.A. Saud, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA : MEMBER SHRI ANAND KISHORE : MEMBER

¶9

ORDER 12.01.2017

¶10

FPA-PMLA-1579/HYD/2016

¶11

The learned counsel for the respondent states that counter is ready and same would be filed in the registry within one week with an advance copy to the counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder on or before the next date of hearing.

¶12

List on 20^th March, 2017.

¶13

MP-PMLA-2979/HYD/216 (Stay)

¶14

Reply has not been filed. The counsel for the appellant is pressing for interim order. He has referred the similar orders dated 03.09.2015 and

¶15

FPA-PMLA-1579/HYD/2016

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

17.08.2016 earlier passed in FPA-PMLA-1035/HYD/2015 by this

¶18

Tribunal.

¶19

The said operative part of said orders dated 3^rd September, 2015 &

¶20

17^th August, 2016. Orders are reproduced: -

¶21

Order dated: 03.09.2015

¶22

“The learned Senior counsel states that the respondent may be directed not to seek encashment of the fixed deposits under attachment from the bank as in case of pre-mature encashment, the applicant will incur loss of substantial amount of interest and that will cause irreparable loss. Considering, the facts and circumstances, both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo till the next date of hearing. The applicant shall not create any third party rights commit waste or transfer the fixed deposit.”

¶23

Order dated 07.08.2016

¶24

“Shri Gyanendra Kumar, Advocate learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant sought permission of the Bench to make a mention for the appellant’s request for modification of the interim relief allowed by the Tribunal. On being so permitted, he submitted that the attached property in this case are fixed deposits. In terms of interim relief granted by the Hon’ble Tribunal vide order dated 3^rd September, 2015 for maintaining status quo, while the principal amount of F.D. is being renewed from time to time, the interest accrued thereon has not been allowed to be rolled over on the interpretation that such relief is not covered under the Tribunal’s order dated 3^rd September, 2015 for status quo. He submitted that non-rolling over of the interest accrued is causing substantial financial loss which is of detriment to the side which succeeds in appeal. He, therefore, requests that the interim relief may extend to rolling over of the interest amount also. In this respect, he also made a statement at the Bar that the said amount rolled over may be treated at par with the amounts attached under the impugned orders and also be subject to the outcome of the appeal. Shri S.A. Saud, Advocate learned counsel for the respondent opposes the request.

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant at the Bar that the interest amount, if permitted to be rolled over, be also treated at par with the Fixed Deposits under attachment, the interim orders vide the order dated

¶26

FPA-PMLA-1579/HYD/2016

¶27

Page 2 of 4

¶28

3^rd September, 2015 are extended to cover the rolling over of the interest amount accrued also. It is made clear to both sides that the F.D.s renewed in terms of the Tribunal’s order dated 3^rd September, 2015 and the F.D. that may be opened in pursuance of today’s orders shall be subject to the outcome of the appeal. If the appellant succeeds in the appeal, the principal amount(s) of the F.D.s as referred above alongwith the interest accrued would be appropriated to the appellant. If the respondent succeeds in the appeal, the principal amounts alongwith the interest accrued shall be appropriated to the respondent.

¶29

Interim order vide order dated 3^rd September, 2015 is modified to the above extent. With the consent of both the sides, the matter is listed for final arguments on 16^th November, 2016.”

¶30

It is suggested by him that the similar order in the present matter also be passed as the appellant is prepared to deposit the fixed deposit for the sum of Rs. 152,84,61,315/- (in the name of the appellant) which may be kept by the respondent as security amount alongwith the interest already accrued thereof. He says that his client shall deposit the said amount by way of fixed deposit within two weeks for the period of 12 months initially and shall keep of renewing the same till the appeal is finally decided. On receipt of the fixed deposit, the respondent be asked to hand over the bank draft for the same amount of Rs. 152,84,61,315/-. With regard to interest component is concerned which is already accrued and future interest, the appellant is not insisting the same till the final disposing of the appeal. An undertaking given that his client shall renew the said deposit one month in advance before its expiry date. His client shall file an undertaking by stating that it shall not alienate, encashed or create encumbrance or to take any loan from any institution directly or indirectly against the said amount to be deposited with the respondent.

¶31

The counsel for the respondent is opposing the suggestion who submitted that the facts and circumstances in the present case are not similar as in the earlier appeal of FPA-PMLA-1035/HYD/2015, the fixed

¶32

FPA-PMLA-1579/HYD/2016

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

deposits were not encashed however in the present case the fixed deposits have already been encashed by the department Thus the said amount cannot be restored in the present case as per rules once the FDs already encashed. Therefore the request of the appellant be rejected.

¶35

In the said case the interim orders are still operating. The date is fixed on 23.3.2017. The difference between two is that in earlier appeal the fixed deposits were not encashed, however in the present case FD’s are encashed before passing the order as suggested by the appellant and the request is opposed by the respondent. Let an undertaking be filed by the appellant as per suggestion made by the learned counsel for the appellant before the next date.

¶36

List on 25^th January, 2017.

¶37

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶38

(Kaushal Srivastava) Member

¶39

(Anand Kishore) Member

¶40

New Delhi,

¶41

12^th January, 2017.

¶42

‘d’

¶43

FPA-PMLA-1579/HYD/2016

¶44

Page 4 of 4

FPA-PMLA-1579/HYD/2016 of Bharati Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1579/HYD/2016 of Bharati Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Joint 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases