Dismissed

Smt. Namita Samantara v. Directorate of Enforcement (Pmla)

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2025MSA/156/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Special Leave Certificate to appeal under PMLA, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appellant's challenge to the attachment of her properties. The court held that since proceeds allegedly involved in crime were used to repay loans secured against these properties, the attachment was legally sustainable.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed under Section 42 of the PMLA was dismissed, upholding the order of attachment of the appellant's properties.

Smt. Namita Samantara Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Pmla) — Money Laundering | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

MSA No. 156 of 2024

¶3

Reserved on : 14.11.2025 Pronounced on : 03.12.2025

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶10

MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No. 156 OF 2024 (PMLA)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SMT. NAMITA SAMANTARA, W/O NIHAR RANJAN SAMANTARA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.23, BASUDEVA NIWAS, 13^TH CROSS, KAGGADASAPURA, CVR NAGAR, BANGALORE-560093.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI MOHAMMED MUJASSIM, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT (PMLA), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, BENGALURU ZONAL OFFICE, 3^RD FLOOR, 'B' BLOCK, BMTC SHANTINAGAR, TTMC K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU 560027, THROUGH THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR.

¶18

THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002,

¶19

¶20

MSA No. 156 of 2024

¶21

ROOM No.26, 4^TH FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI - 110 001 REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR / ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.

¶22

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S IGNIS TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., No.16, APARTMENT No.106, 7^TH MAIN, 13^TH CROSS, BANANSHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560085.

¶23

MR. NIHAR RANJAN SAMANTARA, 23, BASUDEV NIWAS, 13^TH CROSS, KAGGADASAPURA, CVR NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560093.

¶24

THE CHIEF MANAGER, UNITED BANK OF INDIA, ELECTRONIC CITY BRANCH, BANGALORE - 560100.

¶25

SRI.M.RAMOJI, RECOVERY OFFICER-II, DEBT RECOVER TRIBUNAL -KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, 4, JEEVAN MANGAL BUILDING, 2^ND FLOOR, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE -560001.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶28

THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 42 OF THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.05.2024 PASSED IN APPEAL No.FPA-PMLA1835/BNG/2017 ON THE FILE OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (SAFEMA)., MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 1.06.2017 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.1 IN ORIGINAL COMPLIANT (OC)No.682/2017 WHEREIN ATTACHMENT OF THE THREE PROPERTIES PERTAINING TO THE APPELLANT VIDE PAO

¶29

¶30

MSA No. 156 of 2024

¶31

No.20/2017 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.1 DATED 03.01.2017.

¶32

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, K.V. ARAVIND, J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶34

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

¶35

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)

¶36

Heard Sri. Mohammed Mujassim, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Madhukar Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶37

This appeal is filed under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002¹ , by the appellant before the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA in FPA-PMLA1835/BNG/2017, assailing the Final Order dated 07.05.2024.

¶38

The brief facts are that an FIR was registered on 28.12.2012 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Bank Securities & Frauds Cell (BSFC), Bengaluru, on the basis of a complaint dated 21.12.2012 lodged by the Chief Regional Manager, United Bank of India, Regional Office, Bengaluru. The FIR was registered against Shri Nihar Ranjan Samantara and

¶39

1 PMLA 2002

¶40

¶41

MSA No. 156 of 2024

¶42

Shri Prahalad Agiwal, Directors of M/s. IGNIS Technology Solutions Pvt. Ltd.² , and also against Shri V. Suryanarayana, the then Chief Manager, United Bank of India, Electronic City Branch, Bengaluru, and others, for the offences punishable under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988³ .

¶43

3.1 Upon completion of investigation, the CBI filed a charge sheet on 05.11.2014. Based on the said FIR and charge sheet, ECIR/BGZO/02/2015 came to be registered on 12.01.2015 by the Enforcement Directorate, Bengaluru. During the course of investigation, statements of the accused persons and other witnesses were recorded, wherein it emerged that Shri Nihar Ranjan Samantara became a Director of the Company on 30.09.2008 and, as on 15.04.2008, he was holding 24.67% of the shares of the Company along with his relatives and friends.

¶44

3.2 It was alleged that the accused persons had committed fraud upon the complainant-Bank to the tune of Rs.33,42,10,330/- by submitting forged documents in favour of

¶45

2 accused-Company

¶46

3 the Act 1988

¶47

¶48

MSA No. 156 of 2024

¶49

the accused-Company. Hence, it was considered necessary to attach the properties of the appellant along with the properties of the accused-Company. Accordingly, Provisional Attachment Order No.20/2017 dated 03.01.2017 was issued. Investigation revealed that part of loan amount transferred to the account of the appellant has been used to repay the loan against the properties in question.

¶50

3.3 Thereafter, Original Complaint No. 682/2017 was filed before the Adjudicating Authority seeking confirmation of the provisional attachment. The Adjudicating Authority, by order dated 01.06.2017, confirmed the attachment. Aggrieved by the said order of confirmation, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, by order dated 07.05.2024, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Adjudicating Authority. The present appeal has been filed assailing the said order.

¶51

Sri Mohammed Mujassin, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that under the impugned order, three properties belonging to the appellant have been attached. It is contended that these properties were purchased much prior to the loan transaction, namely in the years 2000 and 2010

¶52

¶53

MSA No. 156 of 2024

¶54

respectively, whereas the loan was sanctioned only on 08.04.2010. Learned counsel submits that no part of the loan amount was utilised towards the purchase of these properties. In the absence of any utilisation of the alleged loan proceeds for purchasing the said properties, it is contended that the properties cannot be subjected to proceedings under the PMLA 2002.

¶55

4.1 Learned counsel further submits that, at the instance of the appellant’s husband, who is a Director of the accused-Company, the appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs.1.2 crores from M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company by mortgaging her property at Sl.No.1. It is submitted that the amount was thereafter transferred to the bank account of the Company as a loan, and the said loan remains outstanding.

¶56

4.2 Learned counsel further submits that the appellant is a shareholder of the Company and had entered into an agreement with Shri G. Dhananjay Reddy for the sale of her shares for a total consideration of Rs.2,78,00,000/-. As part consideration, she received a sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/-, which was utilised to repay the loan taken against the property at

¶57

¶58

MSA No. 156 of 2024

¶59

Sl.No.1. It is submitted that, since the balance consideration was not paid, the transfer of shares has not been completed.

¶60

4.3 Learned counsel contends that the factum of the proposed sale of shares is evidenced by the Board Resolution, and the appellant has affixed her signature on the requisite documents and share certificates for transfer of shares in favour of Shri G. Dhananjay Reddy. It is submitted that delivery of share certificates is pending, awaiting payment of the balance consideration.

¶61

4.4 Learned counsel further submits that the amount received from Shri G. Dhananjay Reddy represents part consideration towards sale of shares, and merely because the said amount originated from a loan obtained by Shri G. Dhananjay Reddy and was utilised by the appellant for repayment of her loan, the properties in question cannot be treated as ‘proceeds of crime’ so as to warrant an order of attachment.

¶62

4.5 It is additionally submitted that the appellant was not afforded sufficient opportunity to produce material to establish the share transaction. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for setting aside the order of attachment.

¶63

¶64

MSA No. 156 of 2024

¶65

Sri Madhukar Deshpande, learned counsel

¶66

appearing for respondent No.1, submits that an order of attachment is a tentative measure intended to secure properties alleged to have been acquired from the proceeds of crime, pending investigation. It is further submitted that such attachment does not prevent any person interested from enjoying the immovable property under attachment.

¶67

5.1 Learned counsel contends that, on the basis of the facts and evidence on record, it has been established that the amount paid by Shri G. Dhananjay Reddy originated from the loan amount allegedly availed through fraudulent means, and the said amount received by the appellant was utilised to repay the loan secured against the properties. Hence, the properties under attachment are directly or indirectly connected with the utilisation of the proceeds of crime.

¶68

5.2 It is further submitted that the appellant had sufficient opportunity before both the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority to establish her case regarding the loan and share transaction, which she failed to do. In view of the above, learned counsel prays that the appeal be dismissed.

¶69

¶70

MSA No. 156 of 2024

¶71

We have considered the submissions of learned

¶72

counsel for the parties.

¶73

It is evident that the appellant purchased the property at Sl.No.1 under a registered sale deed dated 19.10.2000. The consideration appears to have been paid from her own account. The properties at Sl.Nos.2 and 3 were purchased pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 05.09.2007; possession was taken on 21.01.2009, and the sale deed was executed on 22.12.2010. The alleged loan transaction is dated 08.04.2010. At first blush, it appears that the properties in question were acquired much prior to the alleged loan transaction.

¶74

7.1 On deeper scrutiny of transactions, it is evident from the record that Shri G. Dhananjay Reddy, Director of the accused-Company, paid a sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/-, out of the loan amount released to the said Company, in favour of the appellant, and the appellant utilised the said amount to repay her existing loan. The mortgage loan of Rs.1.2 crores obtained from M/s. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company, Bengaluru, by the appellant, is still outstanding.

¶75

10 -

¶76

MSA No. 156 of 2024

¶77

7.2 The payment of Rs.1.2 crores by Shri G. Dhananjay Reddy is contended to be part consideration for the transfer of shares held by the appellant in the accused-Company. Though it is contended that the proposed transfer of shares is recorded in the Board Resolution of the Company and that the share certificates have been signed for transfer, the appellant has admitted in her statement dated 05.03.2015 that the share certificates were not delivered to Shri G. Dhananjay Reddy as the balance consideration had not been paid. The total agreed consideration is stated to be Rs.2,78,00,000/-, of which Rs.1.2 crores is said to have been paid as advance, while the remaining amount remains outstanding.

¶78

7.3 It is further admitted in the said statement that the outstanding loan secured against the properties was repaid to the extent of Rs.1.11 crores by utilising a portion of the Rs.1.2 crores received from Shri G. Dhananjay Reddy.

¶79

The appellant had sufficient opportunity before both the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority to substantiate the alleged share transaction. However, no such material was placed before either forum. No material is demonstrated before this Court to examine the contentions

¶80

11 -

¶81

MSA No. 156 of 2024

¶82

urged in that regard. In the absence of any supporting evidence, no error or irregularity can be attributed to the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

¶83

8.1 Further, on the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the amount received by the appellant through Shri G. Dhananjay Reddy was utilised to discharge her liability in respect of the properties under attachment.

¶84

The repayment of the loan has resulted in a direct or indirect connection between the properties and the proceeds of crime. Though the properties were purchased prior to the alleged loan transaction, in view of the admitted fact that the appellant utilised the amount received from accused-Company, through Shri G. Dhananjay Reddy, towards discharge of the loan secured against the said properties, the order of attachment pending conclusion of the trial before the Special Judge, PMLA Court, cannot be faulted.

¶85

9.1 In the absence of cogent and established evidence, the plea that Rs.1.2 crores was received as part consideration for a share-sale transaction cannot be accepted, as such a contention requires evidence and detailed analysis. That

¶86

12 -

¶87

MSA No. 156 of 2024

¶88

exercise appropriately falls within the domain of the pending trial.

¶89

In the light of the above observations, we find no

¶90

merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed .

¶91

Pending I.A's if any, stand disposed of.

¶92

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶93

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶94

DDU

Smt. Namita Samantara v. Directorate of Enforcement (Pmla)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Namita Samantara v. Directorate of Enforcement (Pmla)

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

Narayanappa Since Deceased by Lrs Vs Krishnappa

Sri K R Lokesh Vs Sri David Raju

Gouri Rudrappa Budhihall Vs the National Board of Examinations in Medicals Sciences (Nbems)

Sri Rudramurthy H B Vs the State of Karnataka

Bangalore Development Authority Vs Sri. S. Venkata Reddy

Smt Rupa Vs Sri v Manjunath