Allowed

FPA-PMLA-973/AHD/2015 of Biotor Industries Ltd. & Ors. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmadabad

ATFP13 Dec 2017FPA-PMLA-973/AHD/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by Biotor Industries Ltd. against the confirmation of a provisional attachment order. The Tribunal held that five mortgaged properties secured by banks, who were also involved in pending recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, could not be attached under PMLA without a prior mandatory notice to the banks and an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order confirming the provisional attachment was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to re-hear after issuing notice to all banks and considering their replies

FPA-PMLA-973/AHD/2015 of Biotor Industries Ltd. & Ors. v/s The… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Decision: 13.12.2017

¶3

MP-PMLA-2079/AHD/2015 (Mics.) MP-PMLA-1854/AHD/2015 (Stay)

¶4

¶5

FPA-PMLA-973/AHD/2015

¶6

Biotor Industries Ltd. & Ors.

¶7

Appellants/Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmadabad

¶10

… Respondent

¶11

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶12

For the appellant	:	Shri Pawan Narang, Advocate Shri Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate Shri Abhishek Anand, Advocate
For the respondent	:	Shri Vikas Garg, Advocate
CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH SHRI ANAND KISHORE	: :	CHAIRMAN MEMBER
JUDGEMENT

¶13

FPA-PMLA-973/AHD/2015

¶14

The appellant has filed the above-referred Appeal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “PML Act”) against the Order dated 25.05.2015 (hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”) in O.C. No. 403/2015 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, whereby the Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order dated 26.12.2014 with respect to the immovable properties.

¶15

FPA-PMLA-973/AHD/2015

¶16

Page 1 of 19

¶17

Many FIRs were registered on the written-complaint by the banks. The main contents of the said complaints are as follows:-

¶18

(i) RCBSM2011E0007 dated 13.10.2011 was registered by CBI, BS&FC, Mumbai under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with 120 (B) of IPC on the written complaint of Shri U Balkrishna Bhat, C.G.M. & Zonal Head, Corporation Bank, Greater Mumbai. The allegation in the complaint discloses that S/Shri Bharat kumar M Kapadia, Chairman, Rajesh M Kapadia, Managing Director and others of Biotor Industries Limited, Vadodara entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit the offence of cheating, forgery of valuable securities, forgery for the purpose of cheating and using forged documents as genuine etc. against Corporation Bank and to cause pecuniary advantage to M/s Biotor Industries Limited in the matter of availing post-harvest short term loans on the basis of forged and fabricated documents without any genuine trade transactions/genuine business. The accused persons cheated the Corporation Bank thereby causing wrongful loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.50 crores.

¶19

(ii) RCBSM2011E0006 dated 17.06.2011 was registered by CBI, BS&FC, Mumbai under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A read with 120 (B) of IPC on the written complaint of Shri Rajnikant Diwan, D.G.M., Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ahmedabad. The allegations in the complaint discloses that S/Shri Bharat Kumar M Kapadia, Chairman, Rajesh M Kapadia, Managing Director and others of M/s Biotor Industries Limited, Vadodara alongwith 36 Village Level Aggregators (VLAs) entered into criminal conspiracy to commit the offence of cheating, forgery of valuable securities, forgery for cheating and using false documents as genuine, falsification of accounts etc. against the Oriental Bank of Commerce and to cause undue pecuniary advantage to M/s Biotor Industries Limited, Vadodara in the matter of availing post-

¶20

FPA-PMLA-973/AHD/2015

¶21

Page 2 of 19

¶22

harvest short term loans on the basis of forged and fabricated documents without any genuine trade transactions/genuine business. The accused persons cheated the Oriental Bank of Commerce thereby causing wrongful loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.100 crores (approx.).

¶23

(iii) RCBSM2011E0001 dated 05.01.2011 was registered by CBI, BS&FC, Mumbai under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 120 (B) of IPC on the written complaint of Shri S. Bharatkumar, D.G.M., Bank of Maharashtra, Ahmedabad region. The allegations in the complaint discloses that S/Shri Bharatkumar M. Kapadia, Chairman, Rajesh M Kapadia, Managing Director and others of M/s Biotor Industries Limited, Vadodara along with Village Level Aggregators (VLAs) entered into criminal conspiracy to commit the offence of cheating, forgery of valuable securities, forgery for cheating and using false documents as genuine etc. against the Bank of Maharashtra and to cause pecuniary advantage to M/s Biotor Industries Limited, Vadodara in the matter of availing postharvest short term loans on the basis of forged and fabricated documents without any genuine trade transactions/genuine business. The accused persons cheated the Bank of Maharashtra in turn causing wrongful loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.55.40 crores.

¶24

(iv) RCBSM2011E0003 dated 31.01.2011 was registered by CBI, BS&FC, Mumbai under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A read with 120(B) of IPC on the written complaint of Shri A.R. Shiravadekar, D.G.M., Agri Business Group, IDBI, Mumbai. The allegations in the complaint discloses that S/Shri Bharatkumar M. Kapadia, Chairman, Rajesh M. Kapadia, Managing Director and others of M/s Biotor Industries Limited, Vadodara along with Village Level Aggregators (VLAs) entered into criminal conspiracy to commit the offence of cheating, FPA-PMLA-973/AHD/2015 Page 3 of 19

¶25

Page 3 of 19

¶26

forgery of valuable securities, forgery for cheating and using false documents as genuine etc. against IDBI Bank and to cause pecuniary advantage to M/s Biotor Industries Limited, Vadodara in the matter of availing short term loans on the basis of forged and fabricated documents without any genuine trade transactions/genuine business. Due to the aforesaid acts of accused persons, IDBI Bank suffered a loss of Rs.121.80 crores.

¶27

In the subject FIR, Charge Sheet No.13/2010 dated 01.07.2010, 23/2010 dated 22.12.2010 and Charge Sheet No.11/2011 dated 01.04.2011 was filed by DCB police Station, Vadodara City before the designated Court under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477-A and 120(B) of IPC. On the basis of FIR and charge-sheet ECIR was registered.

¶28

The main reasons given to the alleged allegations against the appellants, as mentioned while passing the impugned order are:(i) The accused charged in the subject charge sheets hatched a conspiracy to mis-appropriate the amount from M/s Biotor Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as „BIL) and different banks during the year 2007 to 2009, by preparing false bills, false invoices and through bogus vehicles Nos. made sale – purchase of the goods viz. Castor Seeds and Castor Oil and prepared false documents and made payments to different companies/firms, which had not sent the goods. On the basis of the false bills/invoices and by showing quantity of Castor Seeds receipts in the godown though such quantity was not in existence and preparing the documents showing that such quantity is in existence and the quantity shown being more than the quantity actually in existence and leasing the raw material and finished goods to different Banks and

¶29

FPA-PMLA-973/AHD/2015

¶30

Page 4 of 19

¶31

against the said raw material/finished goods obtained finances in different manner. In this way, the charged persons hatched the conspiracy in connivance with each other by making false documents and submitting them as a genuine to the banks and thereby misappropriated Rs.2,21,47,00,000/- or more and in this way committed the offence;

¶32

(ii) That some of the accused persons working in the accounts department of M/s Biotor Industries Limited were authorized to sign cheques up to Rs.1 crore as authorized signatory by the company and by misusing the authority, on the basis of the goods which was never received in the company, made payments through cheques to different merchants which enabled M/s BIL to get farmer funding from the banks;

¶33

(iii) That M/s Biotor Industries Ltd. (M/s BIL) had obtained short term loan (Farmers Funding) in the name of bogus farmers from various banks viz. Rs.100 crores from Oriental Bank of Commerce (OBC Bank), Ashram Road Branch, Ahmedabad – 380009, which was credited in the M/s BIL‟s Management and Collection Agent Account (M&C account). Various accounts in the name of actual and bogus Village Level Aggregators (herein after referred as „VLA‟) were opened with the different banks viz. 10 bogus accounts of VLAs with OBC Bank in which some of the persons have signed as identifier and loan account was transferred in these VLAs accounts from M & C A/c. Thus amount payable to the actual farmers were credited in the bogus accounts opened by VLA‟s thereby huge amount of misappropriation was carried out in connivance with other accused who played an active role and thus have committed a serious offence.

¶34

FPA-PMLA-973/AHD/2015

¶35

Page 5 of 19

¶36

The main ground on which the Enforcement Directorate has passed the provisional attachment order is on the basis of complaints filed by the banks making allegation against the company for availment of Agri Loans by forged and fabricated documents, which were disbursed to the appellant no. 1 company.

¶37

The provisional Attachment Order, which has been confirmed by the Impugned Order was passed on a presumption that the appellant company has availed various loans from various banks in form of Agri Loan and further the company has rerouted the same through different modes in large number of inter connected transaction to purchase various properties and hence Section 23 of the PMLA is prima facie applicable.

¶38

Counsel for the appellant has argued that it is the admitted fact that the properties which have been attached were acquired prior to the year 2009. The details of each Agri Loan and the details of the property

¶39

acquired:-

¶40

Bank	Sanction Date	Date of	Alleged period of
		Disbursement	Conspiracy
Corporation	16.05.2009	28.05.2009	2009
Bank
Oriental Bank of	22.03.2009	27.03.2009	2009
Commerce		28.07.2009
Bank of	04.08.2009	19.08.2009	2009
Maharasthra

¶41

FPA-PMLA-973/AHD/2015

¶42

Page 6 of 19

¶43

IDBI Bank 07.02.2009	13.02.2009	2009

¶44

The properties attached as per order would show that the properties were acquired prior in time before sanction of the Agri Loans and the same was not purchased from proceeds of Agri Loans disbursed by the respective bank to the appellant no. 1 company.

¶45

It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the Adjudicating Authority has not considered the said important fact while passing the impugned order.

¶46

The details of the such said property are given below:-

¶47

Description of Property	Year when Property was
	acquired
Plot No. 14 and 14-A, Petrochemical Complex	2006
(A & B), Village Ranoli, District Vadodara
Industrial Land and Construction Property at	2005
Block No. 558 Part, 560 Part, 561 Part, 562/A,
562/B, 563, 564, 566, 567 Part, 578, 580, 581
Admeasuring in all 1,42,523 Sq. Mtrs. And
Construction thereon admeasuring 15,512 Sq.
Mtrs. Situated at Itola-Padra Road, District-
Vadodara
Ekalbara Block No. 495-P and R.S. No. 369/1,	2006
Village Ekalbara, Taluka-Padra, District
Vadodara
Hill Park, Flat No. 4, 3^rdFloor, Bldg. No. 1,	2004

¶48

FPA-PMLA-973/AHD/2015

¶49

Page 7 of 19

¶50

Alexandar Graham Bell Road, Malabar Hill,

¶51

Mumbai

¶52

Makarpura Plot No. 117, Village Vadsar, 2005 Makarpura Industrial Estate, GIDC, Vadodara

¶53

From the above, it is apparent that the aforesaid properties were, in existence well before 2008-09 i.e. the disbursement date of Agri Loan.

¶54

From the material on record, it is evident that it was within the knowledge of the respondent before passing the provisional attachment order that all the five properties not only stood mortgaged with the Banks/Financial Institutions but also had subsisting attachment orders from Sales Tax/Commercial Tax department besides attachment in terms of Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act of Banks/Financial Institutions prior to the provisional attachment.

¶55

The learned counsel for the appellants has pointed the statement recorded by the ED u/s 50 of the Act wherein prior to passing of order of provisional attachment, it was informed that these properties are subject to mortgage but no statement of the official were recorded, no notice were served even no valid investigation done. Despite having full knowledge, the provisional attachment was passed.

¶56

Even at the time of confirmation of the PAO, the Adjudicating Authority has ignored the fact and settled law on the issue of mortgaged properties. Counsel for the appellant has pointed out the reply filed before the Adjudicating Authority wherein it was specifically mentioned that the notice u/s 8(2) is necessary in the matter to the mortgagee

¶57

FPA-PMLA-973/AHD/2015

¶58

Page 8 of 19

¶59

banks as the properties were duly mortgaged with the said bank who are having the possession of the same as per agreement and proceedings of recovery are pending.

¶60

Despite having full knowledge, the Adjudicating Authority chose to ignore the law and various judgments passed by the Supreme Court and High Court and passed the confirmation order.

¶61

13. Details of mortgage created by Banks

¶62

Description of Property	Property Acquired During	Mortgaged Created on	Notice u/s 13(2)	Notice u/s 13(4)
Plot No. 14 and 14-A,	2006	08/09/2009	25/10/2010	05/11/2011
Petrochemical Complex (A &		30/09/2009		15/11/2011
B), Village Ranoli, District
Vadodara
Industrial Land and	2005	08/09/2009	25/10/2010	05/11/2011
Construction Property at		30/09/2009		15/11/2011
Block No. 558 Part, 560
Part, 561 Part, 562/A,
562/B, 563, 564, 566, 567
Part, 578, 580, 581
Admeasuring in all 1,42,523
Sq. Mtrs. And Construction
thereon admeasuring 15,512
Sq. Mtrs. Situated at Itola-
Padra Road, District-
Vadodara
Ekalbara Block No. 495-P	2006	23/11/2006	25/10/2010	05/11/2011
and R.S. No. 369/1, Village Ekalbara, Taluka-Padra,		24/07/2007		15/11/2011

¶63

FPA-PMLA-973/AHD/2015

¶64

Page 9 of 19

¶65

District Vadodara		07/07/2009
Hill Park, Flat No. 4, 3^rd	2004	09/08/2004	25/10/2010	09/08/2012
Floor, Bldg. No. 1, Alexandar
Graham Bell Road, Malabar
Hill, Mumbai
Makarpura Plot No. 117,	2005	29/12/2009	04/11/2010	19/01/2011
Village Vadsar, Makarpura				16/11/2011
Industrial Estate, GIDC,				(Physical
Vadodara				possession was taken by Bank)

¶66

(i) The details of mortgage created in respect of each property in favour of the Banks, which is tabulated herein below:-

¶67

Plot No. 14 and 14-A, Petrochemical Complex (A & B), Village Ranoli,

¶68

District-Vadodara)

¶69

Lenders	Date of	Amount Secured (In
	Created	crores)
State Bank of India	08.09.2009	Rs. 352.35
(Lead Bank)
State Bank of Indore
(now merged with SBI)
State Bank of
Hyderabad
State Bank of
Travancore

¶70

FPA-PMLA-973/AHD/2015

¶71

Page 10 of 19

¶72

Central Bank of India
IDBI Bank
Union Bank of India
Bank of Baroda
HDFC Bank
Bank of India

¶73

(ii) Industrial Land Construction property at Block No. 558 Part, 560 Part, 561 Part, 562/A, 562/B, 563, 564, 566, 567 Part, 578, 580, 581 Admeasuring in all 142,523 Sq. Mtrs. And Construction thereon Admeasuring 15,512 Sq. Mtrs. Situated at Itola, Moje Village-Vaddsala, Itola-Padra Road, District-Vadodara

¶74

Lenders	Date of	Amount Secured (In
	Created	crores)
State Bank of India	10.06.2008	Rs. 346.50
(Lead Bank)
State Bank of Indore
(now merged with SBI)
State Bank of
Hyderabad
State Bank of
Travancore
Central Bank of India
IDBI Bank

¶75

FPA-PMLA-973/AHD/2015

¶76

Page 11 of 19

¶77

Union Bank of India
Bank of Baroda
HDFC Bank
Bank of India

¶78

(iii) Ekalbara Block No. 495-P and R.S. No. 369/1, Village Ekalbara,

¶79

Taluka-Padra, District Vadodara

¶80

Lenders (Consortium)	Date of Created	Amount crores)
State Bank of India	23.11.2016	41.66
(Lead Bank)
HDFC Bank	24.07.2007	12.00
Bank of India (2^nd	07.07.2009	40.00
Charge Holder)

¶81

(iv) Hill Park, Flat No. 4, 3^rd Floor, Bldg. No. 1, Alexandar Graham Bell

¶82

Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai

¶83

Lenders (Consortium)	Date of	Amount
	Created	crores)
State Bank of India	09.08.2004	4.77
(Lead Bank)

¶84

(v) Makarpura Plot No. 117, Village Vadsar, Makarpura Industrial Estate, GIDC, Vadodara

¶85

FPA-PMLA-973/AHD/2015

¶86

Page 12 of 19

¶87

Lenders (Consortium)	Date of	Mortgage	Amount	Secured	(in
	Created		crores)
Allahabad Bank	06.01.2010		Rs. 50.00

¶88

Section 5 (1) is reproduced herebelow:-

¶89

Section 5 – Attachment of property involved in moneylaundering - (1) Where the Director, or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by the Director for the purposes of this section, has reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing), on the basis of material in his possession, that—

¶90

(a) any person is in possession of any proceeds of crime; and (b) such proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to confiscation of such proceeds of crime under this Chapter, he may, by order in writing, provisionally attach such property for a period not exceeding 180 [one hundred and eighty days] from the date of the order, in such manner as may be prescribed:

¶91

[Provided that no such order of attachment shall be made unless, in relation to the scheduled offence, a report has been forwarded to a Magistrate under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or a complaint has been filed by a person, authorised to investigate the offence mentioned in the Schedule, before a Magistrate or court for taking cognizance of the scheduled offence, as the case may be, or a similar report or complaint has been made or filed under the corresponding law of any other country:

¶92

Provided further that, notwithstanding anything contained in [first proviso], any property of any person may be attached under this section if the Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by him for the purposes of this section has reason to believe (the reasons for such belief to be recorded in writing), on the basis of material in his possession, that if such property involved in money-laundering is not attached immediately under this Chapter, the nonattachment of the property is likely to frustrate any proceeding under this Act.]

¶93

In case section 5(1) (a) and (b) are read together, it mandated that

¶94

ED has reason to believe on the material in his possession that in the present case the banks have in possession of any proceed of crime or

¶95

FPA-PMLA-973/AHD/2015

¶96

Page 13 of 19

¶97

they are likely to dispose of such proceed of crime in order to frustrating the proceedings then under only those circumstances, provision orders of attachments are to be passed.

¶98

In the present case, the factual position is that the attached properties were purchased prior to the dates of Agri Loan. Those are mortgaged properties with the banks. Recovery proceedings are pending u/s 13(2) SARFAESI Act prior to the date of provisional attachment order. Possession as per agreements are with the banks. The said properties are to be disposed of if the due amount is not clear in orders to recover the amount due. It is doubtful that the mortgaged properties having any proceed of crime amount which were directly secured with the banks who are mortgagee of the property. Incase both proviso are read together under section 5, the appellant under any circumstances could not have dispose of the properties once those are already mortgagee in the reply filed by the appellant to the notice issued under section 8 of Act.

¶99

The case of the Appellant is closely similar to the case decided by this Tribunal on dated 14.07.2017 in State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata. In Paragraphs 46 and 47 of the Judgment, this Tribunal found that the attached property was purchased much prior to the period when the facility of offending loans were sanctioned to the borrowers. Further, the Bank was not involved in the schedule offence. It was further observed that the mortgaged properties are security to the loans and cannot be subject matter of attachment particularly when the same were purchased and mortgaged prior to the events of funds diversion and frauds committed by the borrowers. A completely same scenario exists in the present case

¶100

FPA-PMLA-973/AHD/2015

¶101

Page 14 of 19

¶102

also where the Appellant is a bona fide lender and the properties in question have been originally purchased, much before the offending transactions took place. The contents of said paragraphs 46 and 47 are reproduced:-

¶103

―46. In the present case, it is undisputed facts that the attached property were purchased much prior to the period when the facility of loan sanctioned to the borrowers. The banks while rendering the facilities were bonafide parties. It is not the case of the respondent that the attached properties were purchased after the loan was obtained. The mortgaged of the properties were done as bonafide purposes. None of the bank is involved in the schedule offence. No PMLA proceedings are pending except the complainant bank was arrayed as Column;-11 at the time of framing charges. Union Bank of India has not granted sanction against its employee to proceed against him in criminal complaint. There is no criminal complaint under the schedule offence and PMLA is pending against the two banks. In case of failure on the part of borrowers to comply with the terms of settlement, the contempt proceedings are maintainable in the Court where the settlement as recorded.

¶104

47. In view of the entire gamut of the dispute, we are of the considered opinion that the conduct of the banks are always bonafide. Both banks are innocent parties. They were legally entitled to inform the Adjudicating Authority about their innocence and they rightly did so but their contention was rejected as appeared from the impugned order.‖

¶105

It is not denied by the respondent that before passing the provisional attachment order, ED was aware that the properties stood mortgaged with the bank. The statement u/s 50 of the Act was recorded before passing the order of provisional attachment. No notice was given to the banks concerned who are mortgagee of the property who becomes secured creditors as per agreement and having the charge of the properties. The said banks are having interest in the properties.

¶106

Section 8(1) and 8(2) reads as under:-

¶107

Section 8 - Adjudication:- (1) On receipt of a complaint under sub-section (5) of section 5, or applications made under subsection (4) of section 17 or under sub-section (10) of section 18, if the Adjudicating Authority has reason to believe that any person has committed an [offence under section 3 or is in possession of proceeds of crime], he may serve a notice of not FPA-PMLA-973/AHD/2015

¶108

Page 15 of 19

¶109

less than thirty days on such person calling upon him to indicate the sources of his income, earning or assets, out of which or by means of which he has acquired the property attached under sub-section (1) of section 5, or, seized under section 17 or section 18, the evidence on which he relies and other relevant information and particulars, and to show cause why all or any of such properties should not be declared to be the properties involved in money-laundering and confiscated by the Central Government:

¶110

Provided that where a notice under this sub-section specifies any property as being held by a person on behalf of any other person, a copy of such notice shall also be served upon such other person:

¶111

Provided further that where such property is held jointly by more than one person, such notice shall be served to all persons holding such property.

¶112

(2) The Adjudicating Authority shall, after—

¶113

(a) considering the reply, if any, to the notice issued under sub- section (1);

¶114

(b) hearing the aggrieved person and the Director or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf, and

¶115

(c) taking into account all relevant materials placed on record before him,

¶116

by an order, record a finding whether all or any of the properties referred to in the notice issued under sub-section (1) are involved in money-laundering:

¶117

Provided that if the property is claimed by a person, other than a person to whom the notice had been issued, such person shall also be given an opportunity of being heard to prove that the property is not involved in money-laundering.

¶118

The proviso of Section 8 (1) is clear that where any property held by a person on behalf of any other person, a copy of such notice shall also be served.

¶119

Counsel for the respondent submits that no such notice was not required. We reject his argument, firstly on the reasons that ED and Adjudicating Authority were fully aware before passing of their respective orders that the attached properties were mortgaged with the banks, despite of that no notice under the mandatory provision was issued to the Banks who are also an aggrieved party. Secondly, the proviso of (2) 8

¶120

FPA-PMLA-973/AHD/2015

¶121

Page 16 of 19

¶122

mandates that if any notice is received and claim raised by said person other than a person to whom the notice had been issued such person (banks in the above matter) shall also be given an opportunity of being heard to prove that the property is not involved in money laundering. The argument of the counsel for the respondent are without any force that no notice was required.

¶123

Admittedly, no notice was issued nor any opportunity was granted to the banks of being heard. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be setaside. Had any notice been issued to all the banks and opportunity was granted for hearing, the banks could have made their claim and argued that the properties in question were not involved in the money laundering.

¶124

It is evident that ED as well as AD failed to considered the reply filed by the appellant contrary to 8(2) of the Act. The issue of mortgage of properties was already available with ED while recording the statement of appellant under section 50 of the Act. Even the Adjudicating Authority failed to considered the reply filed by the appellant where the full details were disclosed. However, both ED and Adjudicating Authority chose not to discuss the main issue.

¶125

The impugned order is completely silent and has been passed without even considering the documents and explanation provided by the appellants by way of reply and compilation as filed before the Adjudicating Authority.

¶126

Prima facie, the provisional attachment order as well as the impugned order is an arbitrary order passed by the Adjudicating FPA-PMLA-973/AHD/2015 Page 17 of 19

¶127

Page 17 of 19

¶128

Authority whereby five (5) properties of the appellants have been attached, without any cogent reason or any basis.

¶129

It is a matter of fact that on default of repayment by the appellant company, the Banks had already on 25.10.2010 called upon appellant no. 1 company to repay the due amount, which the appellant no. 1 company failed to pay and thereby the banks became entitled to enforce the security interest i.e. the immovable properties of appellant company in terms of Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act. The banks have already taken the necessary steps.

¶130

Counsel for the respondent gave the suggestion that this appellate tribunal may implead the all banks as parties and their concerns may be considered. We are of the view that the said suggestion of the respondent cannot be accepted as there were no pleading of any nature either before Adjudicating Authority or before us, as admittedly, neither any notice was issued nor any opportunity of hearing was granted to the banks.

¶131

In view of the above, the appeal is allowed the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for re-hearing after issuing the notice to all banks and shall consider and discuss the reply filed by the appellant and to be filed by the banks before passing the order on merit. Since, it is an important matter, the final order be passed within 180 days from today.

¶132

It is clarified that as far as the merit of the case is concerned, we have not expressed any opinion. The fresh final order be passed by the Adjudicating Authority after discussing all legal issues raised by the parties.

¶133

FPA-PMLA-973/AHD/2015

¶134

Page 18 of 19

¶135

28. No costs.

¶136

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶137

(Anand Kishore) Member

¶138

New Delhi, 13^th December, 2017.