FPA-PMLA-1909/AHD /2017 of Biotor Industries Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmadabad

ATFP5 Sept 2018FPA-PMLA-1909/AHD /2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant challenged an attachment order for lack of Section 8 notices. Court listed the matter for next hearing. Order is interlocutory.

What the court decided

AI extract

FPA-PMLA-1909/AHD /2017 of Biotor Industries Ltd. v/s The Deputy… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2018)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3771/AHD/2017 (Stay) &

¶3

FPA-PMLA-1909/AHD /2017

¶4

Biotor Industries Ltd. … Appellant/Applicant Versus

¶5

The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmadabad

¶6

… Respondent

¶7

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶8

For the appellant	:	Shri Pavan Narang, Advocate Shri Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate Shri Sumit Nagpal, Advocate
For the respondent	:	Shri Vikas Garg, Advocate
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	:	CHAIRMAN

¶9

ORDER 05.09.2018

¶10

MP-PMLA-3771/AHD/2017 (Stay) & FPA-PMLA-1909/AHD /2017

¶11

The present appeal has been filed by Biotor Industries Ltd. challenging the order dated 12^th July, 2017 against the five respondents. As far as respondent no. 3 is concerned i.e. Jayant Oil Products Pvt. Ltd. who has separately has challenged the impugned order which the subject matter of the appeal no. 1910/2017.

¶12

The counsel for the appellant states that the respondent no. 4 and 5 are concerned they are a proforma parties.

¶13

FPA-PMLA-1909/AHD/2017

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

With regard to Respondent no. 2 Jayant Oil Mills, name of this firm has been changed to Biotor Industries Ltd. In order to avoid technical objection, respondent no.2 has made a party in the present proceedings.

¶16

In the impugned order para 9.1 to 9.11 contents the details of the immovable properties. With regard to detail mentioned in para 9.9 and 9.11, the said properties are subject matter of appeal no. 1910/2017 filed by Jayant Oil Product Ltd. The detail of the said properties i.e. at para 9.1, 9.8 and 9.10 are given in the impugned order.

¶17

As far as the property at S.No. 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4 are concerned. These said properties were purchased from the year 1981 to 1994 which were mortgage with the State Bank of India in 2009. The present status of the said properties is mentioned as under:

¶18

No.	Description of Property	Property in the name of	Date/Year of purchase/Lea se	Mortga ge created by/in the year	Date of Sarfesi action	Date of Symbolic possessio n
9.1	Plot No. 476- 479, Makarpura.	Jayant veg. Oils & Chemicals	15.07.1983 (Lease)	State Bank of India 2009	25.10.201 0	15.11.201 1
9.2	Plot No. 480- 82, Makarpura.	Jayant Oil Mills	02.08.1973 (Lease)	State Bank of India 2009	25.10.201 0	15.11.201 1
9.3	Plot No. 483, Makarpura Industrial Estate, GIDC Vadodara	Jayant veg. Oils & Chemicals	03.07.1981 (Lease)	State Bank of India 2009	25.10.201 0	15.11.201 1
9.4	Plot No. 484A, Makarpura	Jayant veg. Oils & Chemicals	12.05.1994 (Lease)	State Bank of India 2009	25.10.201 0	15.11.201 1

¶19

FPA-PMLA-1909/AHD/2017

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

With regard to property no. 9.5, 9.6, 9.7 and 9.9 are concerned, it is stated on behalf of the appellant that said properties were attached by the Sale Tax Office in the year 2009-10.

¶22

With regard to 9.8 is concerned, the appellant has made application for renewal of lease on behalf of company which is pending with CDR.

¶23

Pertaining to property no. 9.10 is concerned, the said property has already been auctioned by one of the unsecured creditor under proceedings.

¶24

The counsel for the appellant states that the respondent herein as well as the Adjudicating Authority were fully aware about the said possession but despite the same no notice under Section 8(1) and 8(2) have been issued either to the State Bank Of India or to the Sale Tax Office and the provisional attachment order as well as its confirmation order are bad and against the provisions of Section 5 and 8 of the Act.

¶25

Mr. Vikas Garg, Advocate states that no earlier attachment order in the matter was remanded back before the adjudicating authority for re-consideration as in that case also no notice was issued. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat which is pending.

¶26

In nutshell, the contention of the appellant is that without issued of notice of the requisite of parties, the provisional order could not have

¶27

FPA-PMLA-1909/AHD/2017

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

been passed in view of the mandatory provision under Section 8 of the Act, on this issue both parties have concluded their submissions. At this stage counsel for the respondent Mr. Vikas Garg, states that the respondent wishes to file the written synopsis by next date.

¶30

List on 1^st October, 2018.

¶31

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶32

New Delhi, 5^th September, 2018.

¶33

‘K’

¶34

FPA-PMLA-1909/AHD/2017

¶35

Page 4 of 4

FPA-PMLA-1909/AHD /2017 of Biotor Industries Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmadabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

FPA-PMLA-1909/AHD /2017 of Biotor Industries Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmadabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases