Allowed

FPA-PMLA-2568/LKW/2018 of Sh. Baldev Raj Arora v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow

ATFP5 Oct 2018FPA-PMLA-2568/LKW/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal entertained a fresh appeal under Section 26 PMLA and issued notice to the respondent. Regarding a stay application concerning attached immovable property, the Chair granted interim relief directing no coercive steps, accepted an undertaking from the appellant not to dispose of the property, and directed him to file details of deposits by co-accused.

What did the court decide?

No coercive steps directed against attached property; appellant's undertaking accepted; appellant directed to file affidavit regarding other accused deposits.

FPA-PMLA-2568/LKW/2018 of Sh. Baldev Raj Arora v/s The Deputy… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2018)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-5049/LKW/2018 E.H. MP-PMLA-4985/LKW/2018 Stay FPA-PMLA-2568/LKW/2018

¶3

Sh. Baldev Raj Arora

¶4

… Appellant

¶5

Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow

¶6

… Respondent

¶7

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶8

For the appellant	: Mr. Vaibhav Dang, Advocate
For the respondent	: Mr. Mohd. Faraz, Advocate
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	: CHAIRMAN

¶9

ORDER

¶10

05.10.2018

¶11

FPA-PMLA-2568/LKW/2018

¶12

Fresh appeal has been filed under Section 26 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the order dated 13^th August, 2018. Issue notice to the respondent. Mr. Faraz, accepts the notice let the reply be filed within six weeks with an advance copy to the counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder within four weeks thereafter.

¶13

List this appeal for consideration on 21^st February, 2019.

¶14

MP-PMLA-4985/LKW/2018 Stay

¶15

Alongwith the appeal, the application for stay has also been filed. Counsel for the appellant states that notice under Section 8(4) has been received to take the possession of the immovable property bearing no. FPA-PMLA-2568/LKW/2018 Page 1 of 4

¶16

144, Golf Link, New Delhi in the name of B.S. Arora which was purchased on 30^th September, 1993. The detail of allegation against Mr. B.S. Arora and other person are mentioned at para 13 of the impugned order. The same is read as under:

¶17

“13. Thus, cotractor B.R. Arora and Dhirendra Singh in criminal conspiracy with G.R. Sharma, the then Sr. Manager (Engg.-Civil), AAI, Varanasi, Bhupendra Kumar, the then Manager (Engg.-Civil), AAI Varanasi, Dilip Kumar, The then manager (Engg.-Civil), Aai, Varanasi, J.L. Marandi, Manager (Engg.-Civil), the same was submitted in the office of AAI, Varanasi where Bhupendra Kumar, the then Manager (Engg.-Civil), AAI, Varanasi, Dilip Kumar, the then the then Manager (Engg.-Civil), AAI, Varanasi,, J.L. Marandi, Manager (Engg.-Civil), AAI, Varanasi, while posted and functioning as such during the relevent period at LBS Airport, AAI, Varanasi made entires of the same in the respective register of cement, Recron and Bitumen with their signatures and Shri G.R. Sharma while posted and functioning as Sr. Manager (Engg.-Civil), LBS Airport, AAI Varanasi verified the same. As a result all these accused following wrongful loss to the AAI and corresponding wrongful gain

¶18

to themseleves:-

¶19

*S.No.*	*Cause of Loss*	*Amount* of *loss ( in Rs.)*
1.	Loss due to submission of 37 fake bills of cement	64,84,958.65
22.	Loss due to submission of 3 _fake bills of Bitumen _	16,66,741.95
23.	Loss due to lesser quentity of Recron used in PQC	12,12,012.00
	*Total*	*93,63,712.6* 0

¶20

Counsel for the respondent has referred page no. 68 and submitted

¶21

that the appellant had agreed before the Adjudicating Authority to deposit the proceed of crime to the tune of Rs. 93.42 lac. which is according to the CBI is generated in the hands of the appellants and others. The contents of the said para 6 of the impugned order is read as under:

¶22

“6. During the course of oral arguments defendant counsel mentioned that without going into merits of the case even if it is presumed that proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs. 93.42 lacs have been generated in the hands of defendant. ED has replied to attach property upto that extent. However, while attaching the immovable property of the defendant in the matter the contention made by ED that no other assets are available, is not well founded. He also mentioned that during the course of investigation ED has enquired

¶23

FPA-PMLA-2568/LKW/2018 Page 2 of 4

¶24

about the Fixed Deposit Receipt from the bank and the bank has mentioned that defendant has got Fixed Deposit Receipt of amount over Rs. 3 crores in the bank. Therefore, it cannot be said that other assets are not available for attachment. He also mentioned that sum Rs. 64 lacs is deposited in the court and another Rs. 60 lacs is deposited as surety amount for securing bail. However he requested that instead of the immovable property to the extent of the Proceeds of Crime, he is willing to offer Fixed Deposit receipt of bank upto that amount. He also said that he is not going into the merits of the case therefore in lieu of the property which is attached in the Provisional Attachment Order, Fixed Deposit Receipt upto that amount can be attached.”

¶25

Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no admission from the part of the appellant to deposit of Rs. 93.42 lac if as proceeds of crime rather the impression was created that in case the end of the date it is a proceeds of crime, the said amount may be deposited. The counsel has pointed out that the appellant has already deposited 64 lac. with the CBI Court, which was without prejudice in order to secure the part of the amount. It is stated by the counsel for the appellant that the other accused parties deposited certain amount from the amount of proceeds of crime. The counsel for the respondent states that in the meanwhile the appellant be asked deposit the remaining amount, if any relief is to be granted in favour of the appellant. The said argument of the respondent will be considered on the next date of hearing. At present the argument addressed on behalf of appellant has force as far as for grant of interim relief. In the meanwhile, the appellant is directed to given the full detail of the deposit of amount by the other accused by filing an affidavit within four weeks from today. In view of the facts involve in the matter and grounds taken in the appeal, I am inclined to pass the order till the next date of hearing.

¶26

It is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondent in view of the notice issued under section 8(4) of the Act.

¶27

FPA-PMLA-2568/LKW/2018

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

However, the undertaking given by Mr. Arora is accepted that till the he will not disposed of or create third party interest till the final disposal of the appeal.

¶30

List on 21^st February, 2019.

¶31

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

¶32

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶33

New Delhi, 5^th October, 2018

¶34

‘K’

¶35

FPA-PMLA-2568/LKW/2018

¶36

Page 4 of 4

FPA-PMLA-2568/LKW/2018 of Sh. Baldev Raj Arora v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-2568/LKW/2018 of Sh. Baldev Raj Arora v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow

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

Similar cases