Partly allowed

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

ATFP6 Aug 2019FPA-PMLA-1579/HYD/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review application under Section 35(2)(f) PMLA, the Tribunal allowed a prayer to correct a typographical error in the bank guarantee sum and ruled against allowing a separate prayer concerning the bank guarantee tenure. The case was disposed of in part.

What did the court decide?

Allowed correction of typographical error in bank guarantee amount; refused prayer regarding bank guarantee tenure.

FPA-PMLA-1579/HYD/2016 of M/s. Bharati Cement Corporation Pvt… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2019)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-6286/HYD/2019 (Review) MP-PMLA-2979/HYD/2016 (Stay) MP-PMLA-2980/HYD/2016 (Exem.) & FPA-PMLA-1579/HYD/2016

¶3

M/s. Bharati Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd . … Appellant Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad … Respondent

¶4

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶5

For the Appellant	: Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Senior Advocate
	Mr. Gyanandra Kumar, Advocate
	Ms. Jyoti Dastidar, Advocate Ms. Shreya Sethi, Advocate
For the Respondent (ED)	: Mrs. Aagam Kaur, Proxy counsel
	On behalf of Mr. Mohd. Faraz, Advocate
CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	: CHAIRMAN

¶6

ORDER 06.08.2019

¶7

MP-PMLA-6286/HYD/2019 (Review)

¶8

The final order in the above said matter was passed on 26.07.2019. Fresh application on behalf of the appellant has been filed under Section 35(2)(f) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 read with Principles Governing Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for review of the judgment and order dated 26.07.2019 passed by this Tribunal in the above said appeal. Advance copy of the application was served. Issue notice. Heard both parties.

¶9

FPA-PMLA-1579/HYD/2016

¶10

Page 1 of 2

¶11

I have gone through the application, as far as prayer (b) of the application is concerned, this Tribunal does not wish to allow the said prayer. With regard to Prayer (a) is concerned, the same is allowed as it is merely typographical error which has been occurred by mentioning “Rs.192 crores” instead of correct figure of “Rs.152,84,61,315/-” (Rupees One Hundred and Fifty Two Crores, Eighty Four Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Three Hundred and Fifteen) which is actual figures mentioned in the pleadings of the parties.

¶12

Tenure of the bank guarantee has not been fixed, therefore, para 112 of the order with regard to the furnishing of the bank guarantee clarified is that the appellant shall furnish the bank guarantee of a sum of Rs.152,84,61,315/- (Rupees One Hundred and Fifty Two Crores, Eighty Four Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Three Hundred and Fifteen) initially for a period of one year, to be renewed every year before expiry, from any Bank registered with regard with the Reserve Bank of India.

¶13

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶14

New Delhi, 06^th August, 2019

¶15

„AS‟

¶16

FPA-PMLA-1579/HYD/2016

¶17

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-1579/HYD/2016 of M/s. 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 M/s. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases