Indian Overseas Bank & Others vs Joint Director, Directorate Of Enforcement, New Delhi & Ors

,,,,,

G. C. Mishra, Acting Chairman",,,,,

FPA-PMLA-1530/DLI/2016, FPA-PMLA-1550-1556/DLI/2016, FPA-PMLA-1566/DLI/2016 & FPA-PMLA-1581/DLI/2016",,,,,

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in the matter of Crl. A. 1090/2018 and Crl.M.A. 34832/2018 filed by the Deputy Director,",,,,,

Directorate of Enforcement against the Indian Overseas Bank and others on dated 01.11.2019 passed the following order as below:,,,,,

“ It is agreed between the parties that in view of the judgment passed by a coordinate bench of this court in the case bearing Crl. A.,,,,,

143/2018 in Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement Delhi vs. Axis Bank and Ors. And other batch matters, the present case be",,,,,

remanded back to Appellate Tribunal for PMLA and the tribunal shall restore the appeal and after hearing both the parties, decide the",,,,,

same within six weeks from the receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of, accordingly. Pending application stands disposed of. â€​",,,,,

In compliance to the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court the appeals are restored to file by fixing 28.11.2019 on which date both,,,,,

the parties were present and they were allowed to file written synopsis. Since, the matter is remanded to the tribunal and since the appeal is restored,",,,,,

the present appeals are to be decided in the light of orders passed in Crl. Appeal No. 143/2018 & Crl.M.A. 2262/2018 in the matter of Deputy,,,,,

Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi vs. Axis Bank and other batch matters.",,,,,

In view of the above, the appeals are heard afresh. Since, the properties are involved in the present appeals are same and the pleadings are also",,,,,

same, so all the appeals are taken up for hearing together and the present common order is passed.",,,,,

The facts of the appeals as per records are as follows:,,,,,

The main allegations in the complaint against borrowers which are recorded in the impugned order are as under:,,,,,

(a) M/s. Century Communication Ltd. (hereinafter also referred to as “CCLâ€), was originally incorporated on 03.05.1995 as Private Limited",,,,,

Company, with Registration No. 55-68152 (PAN AABCC5986H) and converted into Public Limited Co. on 18.12.1996. M/s. CCL is having its",,,,,

registered office at M-14A, Lajpat Nagar, Part-2, New Delhi-24 and Corporate office at Plot No. 17 B & C, Sector-16A, Film City, NOIDA, Uttar",,,,,

Pradesh and is engaged in the business of Media Industry and is providing Production and Post Production facilities like shooting of films, editing and",,,,,

graphic facilities etc.,,,,,

(b) The directors of the company are; (i) Mr. Prabodh Kumar Tewari, Managing Director, (ii) Mr. Anand Kumar Tewari, Full Time Director, (iii) Mr.",,,,,

Abhishek Tewari, Full Time Director (iv) Mrs. Meena Tewari, Director and (v) Mr. Ishara Ram Babu, Director. M/s. CCL was banking with Indian",,,,,

Overseas Bank, Industrial Finance Branch, New Delhi since October, 2000 and later shifted to their Defence Colony branch on 30.04.2003.",,,,,

(c ) The M/s. CCL availed credit facilities i.e. Term Loan, Working Capital, and LC/LG by the consortium of 10 Banks i.e. Vijaya Bank, Oriental",,,,,

Bank of Commerce, State Bank of India, Canara Bank, State Bank of Hyderabad, Punjab National Bank, Union Bank of India, Bank of Baroda,",,,,,

Andhra Bank and Indian Overseas Bank (Lead Banker). Details of credit facilities availed by M/s. CCL are as under:,,,,,

i. On 06.03.2004, a Term Loan of Rs. 58.00 Crore by Consortium of Banks including Rs. 15.0 Crore of IOB was sanctioned by the Banks, for setting",,,,,

up a digital studio at Mumbai. Apart from above, Cash Credit limit was enhanced from Rs. 8.10 Crore to Rs. 12.60 Crore, LC limit from Rs. 1.80",,,,,

Crore to Rs. 3.00 Crore and fresh LG limit of Rs. 0.60 Crore were sanctioned.,,,,,

ii. On 12.03.2005, another Term Loan of Rs. 30.00 Crore by the Consortium including Rs. 10.00 Crore of IOB was sanctioned by the Banks, for",,,,,

setting up a digital studio in company’s Regd. Office at Lajpat Nagar, Delhi, alongwith a Corporate Loan of Rs. 5.00 Crore was sanctioned under",,,,,

“Insta Fund Scheme†to part finance the company’s expenditure towards setting up of two representative offices abroad and towards,,,,,

meeting training expenses of their personnel. During the same year the Cash Credit Limit was enhanced from Rs. 12.60 Crore to Rs. 16.20 Crore.,,,,,

LC/LG limit from Rs. 3.60 Crore to Rs. 4.80 Crore. In 2006, the Cash Credit Limit was further enhanced from Rs. 16.20 Crore to Rs. 24.50 Crore",,,,,

and LC/LG limits from RS. 4.80 Crore to Rs. 10.00 Crore.,,,,,

iii. On 01.02.2007, a fresh Term Loan of Rs. 190.52 Crore was sanctioned by Consortium Members including Rs. 45.00 Crore of IOB for setting up",,,,,

another studio at Mumbai and a studio at Chennai. The balance loan amount was sanctioned by other member Banks.,,,,,

iv. On 21.08.2009, another Term Loan of Rs. 275.00 Crore was sanctioned by Consortium banks including Rs. 60.00 Crore by IOB for refurbishment",,,,,

of Studio at NOIDA and the expansion of Studio at Mumbai. The balance loan amount was sanctioned by other member Banks.,,,,,

v. Apart from above in 2010, Cash Credit Limit was also enhanced to Rs. 63.00 Crore, LC limit of Rs. 8.00 Crore and LG limit of Rs. 2.00 Core by",,,,,

IOB. Besides, onetime LG limit of Rs. 8.75 Crore was also sanctioned for advance payment to be received by SPV formed for post-production job",,,,,

abroad.,,,,,

(d) As on 09.01.2012 total outstanding of CCL towards all consortium banks was Rs. 615.56 Crore, out of which lead bank, i.e. IOB, share was Rs.",,,,,

163.198 Crore.,,,,,

The ECIR was recorded on 20.06.2013 by the Enforcement Directorate, Delhi Zonal Office upon registration of an FIR No. RC.BD1/2012/E/0003",,,,,

dated 23.02.2012, Bank Securities and Fraud Cell of CBI, against M/s. Century Communication Ltd. (CCL), under Section 120-B read with 420, 467,",,,,,

468, 471 of IPC and under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of PC Act. The said FIR was filed on the basis of complaint dated 22.02.2012 of Shri G.",,,,,

Ravindra Kumar Gandhi, General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank Personnel Administration Department, Central Office, Annasalai, Chennai- 600",,,,,

002.,,,,,

The Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) No. 02/2016 dated 29.03.2016 passed by the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate Delhi Zone",,,,,

New Delhi pursuant to which Original Complaint (O.C.) No. 588/16 is filed before this Authority. The principal Defendants are M/s. Century,,,,,

Communication Ltd. (D-1), Shri Prabodh Kumar Tewari (D-2), Shri Anand Tiwari (D-3), Shri Abhishek Tewari (D-4), Smt. Meena Tiwari (D-5) who",,,,,

are Directors/shareholders of M/s. Century Communication Ltd. (D-1). The D-6 & D-8 to D-16 (who are the appellant nos. 1 to 10 referred above,,,,,

herein) are the various banks, who have under various loan agreements extended diverse credit facilities to D-1.",,,,,

By virtue of aforesaid Provisional Attachment Order, the following properties are ordered to be attached belonging to D-1 in respect of the",,,,,

properties at Sr. No(s). 1 to 5. The property at Sr. No. 6 belongs to Shri P.K. Tiwari (D-2), Meena Tiwari (D-5), Anand Tiwari (D-3) and Abhishek",,,,,

Sr. No.,Property Details,Value (Rs. Crore),,,

1,"Plot No. FC-17 B & 17 C, Film City, Sector-16 A

Noida, U.P.",52.25,,,

2,"Unit No. 1 to 7 on 8th Floor, Lotus Nilkamal

Business Park at Condminium Dalla IndustrialÂ

Estate, Andheri (West), Mumbai",9.72,,,

3,"Unit No. 503 A on 5th Floor &Entire 6th Floor at

Landmark Condominium 149-150, Pall Road,

Bandra (West), Mumbai",23.13,,,

4,"Unit No. 201 & 202, 2nd Floor, Carinthian

Premises Owners Association, Plot No. 370, Link

Road Khar, Mumbai",7.20,,,

5,"Property bearing at 4.0125% undivided share in

land with area 2.183 acres in Old Sr. No. 32, 33/2,

and 33/3, new serial no. 33/2B, 33/2C1 and 32/2C$

of Nandmbakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk,

Kanchipura District at Mount Poonamallee Road,

Chennai",7.16,,,

6,"Property of Shri P.K. Tewari, Smt. Meena

Tewari, Shri Anand Tewari and Shri Abhishek

Tewari situated at 6, Southern Avenue, Maharani

Bagh, New Delhi",12.50,,,

,Total,111.96,,,

CENTURY COMMUNICATION LTD.,,,,,

Name of Property (ii),"Amount of Property/

Registration",Date,Mode of Payment,Amount,

Property of Century

Communication Ltd.

8th floor, Lotus Neel

Kamal Business

Park, Plot No.C18,

19, 20 & 21,

Oshiwara, Andheri

(West) Mumbai

(6000 Sq. Ft.) on

10.12.2009 (Ajay

Devgan)","238,875,000.00",09.12.2009,"By Ch. No. 584444

dtd 09.12.09 issued to

COSMOS

COOPERATIVE

BANK LTD. A/C

O F STAMP DUTY

CHARGES FRO

CCL-OBC BAN

A/C 1866(PISIO

MUMBAI)","11,375,000.00

M

K

N",

,,09.12.2009,"By Ch. No. 584445

dtd 09.12.2009 issued

to JOIND SU

REGISTRAR,

ANDHERI I

RESPECT O

PROPERTY O

LOTUS CHARGE

FROM CCL OB

BANK A/C 186

(MUMBAI)","30,000.00

B

N

F

F

S

C

6",

,,10.12.2009,"By Ch. No. 584454

dtd 10.12.2009 issued

from CCL OBC

BANK A/C

1866(MUMBAI)","96,000,000.00",

,,10.12.2009,"By DD No. 414907

dtd 10.12.2009 issued

to Ajay Devganj

from CCL IOB Ban

A/c New Delhi.","90,000,000.00

k",

,,10.12.2009,"By DD No. 414906

dtd. 10.12.2009

issued to Ajay

Devgan from CCL

IOB Bank a/c New

Delhi.","41,500,000.00",

Amount Received Detail,,,TOTAL,"238,905,000. 00",

B y RTGS Recd

From CCL-IOB No

Lien Bank A/c No

011502000004910 to

CCL-Pixion Mumbai

OBC Bank A/c No

1866 on 09.12.2009.",".

n

.

.",,"12,000,000.00",,

B y RTGS Recd

From CCL-IOB C

Bank A/c No.

011502000004804 to

CCL-Pixion Mumba

OBC Bank A/c No

1866 on 09.12.2009.",".

C

i

.",,"96,000,000.00",,

B y DD issued (for

Ajay Devgan) From

CCL-IOB Lien Ban

A/c No.

011502000004910 to

CCL-Pixion Mumba

OBC Bank A/c No

1866 on 18.12.2009.","k

i

.",,"131,500,000.00",,

CENTURY COMMUNICATION LTD.,,,,,

Name of Property

(iii)","Amount of Property /

Registration",Date,Mode of Payment,Amount,

Property of Century

Communication Ltd.

Plot No. 370, 2nd

Floor, Linking Road

Khar (West) Mumbai

(1300 Sq. Ft.) on

29.11.2006","Rs.34,545,00 0.00

,",05.07.2007,"By Ch. No. 699250

dated 05.07.2007

issued from CCL

OBC Bank A/c 1866","500,000.00

,",

,,23.07.2007,"By Ch. No. 723026

dated 21.07.2007

issued to Seagull

(Sandeep Sharma)

from CCL OBC

Bank A/c 1866","10,000,000.00",

,,04.08.2007,"By DD issued from

CCL NonLien A/c

No.

011502000004910","60,010.00",

,,04.08.2007,"B y DD issued in

favour of ICIC

Bank A/c from CCL

Non-lien A/c No.

0115020000049 10

(For Stamp Duty

Charges).","957,610.00

I",

,,08.08.2007,"By Ch. No. 458794

dated 04.08.2007

(DD No. 534587940

issued to Sandeep

Sharma from CCL

Non Lien A/c No

011502000004910","9,500,000.00

)

.",

,,08.08.2007,"By Ch. No. 458792

dated 04.08.2007

(DD No. 534587726

issued to JT Sub

Registrar Andheri

â€" 1, from CCL

Non Lien A/c No

0115020000491 0 for

Registration charges","30,000.00

)

.",

,,08.08.2007,"By Ch. No. 458793

dated 04.08.2007

(DD No. 534587933

issued to JT Sub

Registrar Andheri

â€" 1, from CCL

NON LIEN A/c N

0115020000491 0 die

Registration charges.","5,000.00

)

,

o.",

,,08.08.2007,"By Ch. No. 458791

dated 04.08.2007

(DD No. 534587919

issued to ICICI Ban

A/c of Stamp Duty

from CCL, NON

LIEN A/c No

0115020000491 0 die

Registration charges","25,010.00

)

k

.",

Amount Received

Details",,,Total,"21,077,630.00",

By Ch. No. 619090

dated 03.07.2007

Received from

Footcandles films

Pvt. Ltd. to CCL

OBC Bank A/c 186

(CCLPIXION

MUMBAI) o

05.07.2007","6

n",,"500,000.00",,

By Ch. No. 921220

dated 21.07.2007,

Received from Via

Earth Pvt. Ld. To

CCL-OBC Bank A/c

No. 1866 (ICCL

Pixion Mumbai on

23.07.2007",-,,"10,000,000.00",,

CENTURY COMMUNICATION LTD,,,,,

Name of Property

(iv)","Amount of Property /

Registration",Date,Mode of Payment,Amount,

Property of Century

Communication Ltd.

6th Floor, No. 41,

Jayanth Tech Park,

Mount Poonamallec

High Road, Chenna

â€" 600089 (11835

Sq. Ft.) on

23.08.2007","73,157,594.00

i",28.07.2007,"D D issued to

Vishranhi Homes

Pvt. Ltd. from CCL

IOB Non Lien A/

No.

011502000004910","22,500,000.00

c",

,,22.08.2007,"Amount paid to The

Sub Registrar

Alandur, Chennai

(Vishranthi Homes

Pt. Ltd.) From CCL

IOB-NON Lien A/

No.

011502000004910","720,553.00

c",

,,22.08.2007,"D D issued to

Vishranhi Homes

Pvt. Ltd. from CCL

IOB Non Lien A/

No.

011502000004910","42,637,589.00

c",

65,858,142.00",,,,,

CENTURY COMMUNICATION LTD.,,,,,

Name of Property

(V)","Amount of Property /

Registration",Date,Mode of Payment,Amount,

,"Property of Century

Communication Ltd.

5th & 6th Floor

including 7th Floor

Te r r a c e Portion

Landmark, Bandra

(West Mumbai â€

400050) (1433 Sq. Ft.

1913 Sq. Ft. & 4319

Sq. Ft. Terrace

Portion) on

18.03.2004","6,08,42,700.00",19.10.2006,"B y Cheque No.

714171 issued to

Sajal Kumar Jain

from CCL OBC

Bank A/c 1866

(Pixion Mumbai)","5,00,000.00

,,,19.10.2006,"B y Cheque No.

714170 issued to S.

K. Jain from CC

OBC Bank A/c 186

(Pixion Mumbai)","6,00,000.00

I

6

,,,28.10.2006,"B y Cheque No.

741385 issued to

Sajal Kumar Jain

from CCL OBC

Bank A/c 1866

(Pixion Mumbai)","18,00,000.00

,,,28.10.2006,"B y Cheque No.

741386 issued to

Shreelekha Jain from

CCL OBC Bank A/

1 8 6 6 (Pixion

Mumbai)","23,00,000.00

c

,,,28.10.2006,"B y Cheque No.

741384 issued to

Sushila Jain from

CCL OBC Bank A/

1866 (Pixion

Mumbai)","27,00,000.00

c

,,,28.10.2006,"B y Cheque No.

741383 issued to

Sushil Kumar Jain

from CCL OBC

Bank A/c 1866

(Pixion Mumbai)","21,00,000.00

,,,22.11.2006,"B y Cheque No.

493683 issued to

Sajal Kumar Jain

from CCL IOB Ban

A/c 1530 (fund Trfd.

From IOB Worli to

CCL A/c in Favou

of Bank of Rajasthan

A/c Stamp Duty for

Plot 2 at Khar

Corinthian Bldg.","14,00,000.00

k

r

,,,22.11.2006,"B y Cheque No.

493685 issued to

Sushila Jain from

CCL IOB Bank A/

1530 (fund Trfd.

From IOB Worli to

CCL A/c in Favou

of Bank of Rajasthan

A/c Stamp Duty for

Plot 2 at Khar

Corinthian Bldg","16,45,000.00

c

r

,,,,,

,29.11.2006,"B y Cheque No.

695172 issued to

Sajal Kumar Jain

from CCL OBC

Bank A/c 1866

(Pixion Mumbai)","1,17,00,000.00",,

,29.11.2006,"B y Cheque No.

695173 issued to

Sajal Kumar Jain

from CCL OBC

Bank A/c 1866

(Pixion Mumbai)","1,17,00,000.00",,

,29.11.2006,"B y Cheque No.

695171 issued to

Sushila Jain from

CCL OBC Bank A/

1866 (Pixion

Mumbai)",c,,

,29.11.2006,"B y Cheque No.

695170 issued to

Sushila Kumar Jain

from CCL OBC

Bank A/c 1866

(Pixion Mumbai)",,,

Amount Received Details,Total:,,"6,39,45,000.00",,

By Cheque 577490 dated 20.10.2006 issued from CCL OBC C

Bank A/c 02174010000220 to OBC Bank A/c No. 1866 (Pixio

Mumbai in Favour of S.K. Jain",,"C5,00,000.00

n",,,

By Cheque 577504 dated 30.10.2006 issued from CCL OBC

Bank A/c No. 1866 (Pixion Mumbai) in favour of Sajal Kr. Jain

Shree Lekha Jain, Sushila Jain & Sushil Kr. Jain",,"90,00,000.00

,",,,

By Cheque 493683, 493684, 493685 & 493686 dated 23.11.2006

issued from CCL â€" IOB Bank A/c â€" 1530 to OBC Bank A/c

No. 1866 for (Rs. 1400000 + 30000 +1645000 + 30000

=3105000/- (Pixion Mumbai) in Favour of Sajal Kr. Jain &

Sushila Jain and Stamp & Duty charges.",,"31,05,000.00",,,

Cheque No. 442050 dated 27.11.2006 issued from Pearl Vision

Pvt. Ltd. CITI Bank A/c No. 0802742223 to OBC Bank A/c No.

1866 for Rs. 17244877/-(Pixion Mumbai)",,"1,72,44,877.00",,,

Cheque No. 442048 dated 27.11.2006 issued from Pearl Vision

Pvt. Ltd. CITI Bank A/c No. 0802742223 to OBC Bank A/c No.

1866 for Rs. 265000477.80 (Pixion Mumbai)",,"2,65,00,477.80",,,

To sum up on the issue, the objective of the legislation in PMLA being distinct from the purposes of the three other enactments viz.",,,,,

RDBA, SARFAESI Act and Insolvency Code, the latter cannot prevail over the former. There is no inconsistency. The purpose, the text and",,,,,

context are different. This court thus rejects the argument of prevalence of the said laws over PMLA.,,,,,

THE RIGHTS OF THIRD PARTY ACTING BONA FIDE,,,,,

In view of the conclusions reached as above, rejecting the argument of prevalence of RDBA, SARFAESI Act and Insolvency Code over",,,,,

PMLA, the said laws (or similar other laws, some referred to above) must co-exist, each to be construed and enforced in harmony, without",,,,,

one being in derogation of the other, with regard to assets respecting which there is material available to show the same to have been",,,,,

derived or obtained"" as a result of ""criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence"" rendering the same ""proceeds of crime"", within the",,,,,

mischief of PMLA. The PMLA, declares, by virtue of Section 71, that it has over-riding effect over other existing laws, such provision",,,,,

containing non-obstante clause with regard to inconsistency apparently to be construed as referable to the dealings in ""money-laundering""",,,,,

and ""proceeds of crime"" relating thereto.",,,,,

An order of attachment under PMLA, if it meets with the statutory pre-requisites, is as lawful as an action initiated by a bank or",,,,,

financial institution, or a secured creditor, for recovery of dues legitimately claimed or for enforcement of secured interest in accordance",,,,,

with RDBA or SARFAESI Act. An order of attachment under PMLA is not rendered illegal only because a secured creditor has a prior,,,,,

secured interest (charge) in the subject property. Conversely, mere issuance of an order of attachment under PMLA cannot, by itself, render",,,,,

illegal the prior charge or encumbrance of a secured creditor, this subject to such claim of the third party (secured creditor) being",,,,,

bonafide. In these conflicting claims, a balance has to be struck. On account of exercise of the prerogative of the State under PMLA, the",,,,,

lawful interest of a third party which may have acted bonafide, and with due diligence, cannot be put in jeopardy. The claim of bonafide",,,,,

third party claimant cannot be sacrificed or defeated. A contrary view would be unfair and unjust and, consequently, not the intention of",,,,,

the legislature. The legislative scheme itself justifies this view. To illustrate, reference may be made to sub-section (8) of Section 8 PMLA",,,,,

where-under a power is conferred on the special court to direct the Central Government to ""restore"" a property to the claimant with a",,,,,

legitimate interest even after an order of confiscation has been passed.,,,,,

The legislation on money-laundering, as is the case of similarly placed other legislations providing for forfeiture or confiscation of",,,,,

illegally acquired assets, contains sufficient safeguards to protect the interest of such third parties as may have acted bonafide. Such",,,,,

safeguards and rights to secure their lawful interest in the property subjected to attachment (with intent to take it to confiscation) have,,,,,

already been noticed at length with reference to the statutory provisions. To recapitulate, and by way of illustration, reference may be made",,,,,

to the opportunity afforded by law (Section 8) to a person claiming ""a legitimate interest"" to approach the adjudicating authority and the",,,,,

appellate tribunal, as indeed the court, to prove that he had ""acted in good faith"", taking ""all reasonable precautions"", himself not being",,,,,

involved in money-laundering, to seek its ""release"" or ""restoration"". In this context, however, as also earlier noted, the presumptions that",,,,,

can be drawn in terms of Sections 23 and 24 of PMLA are to be borne in mind, the burden of proving facts contrary to the case of money-",,,,,

laundering being on the person claiming to have acted bonafide.,,,,,

As noted earlier, there are three parts of the definition of the expression ""proceeds of crime"", the first clearly referring to a property",,,,,

respecting which there is material to show the same to have been ""derived or obtained"", directly or indirectly, by a person ""as a result of",,,,,

criminal activity (of specified nature)"". In case such property is held by the person who is ""charged with the offence of money-laundering"",",,,,,

there is a statutory presumption under Section 24(a) PMLA, using the expression ""shall presume"", about it being proceeds of crime involved",,,,,

in such money-laundering. It is a rebuttable presumption, the onus to prove facts to the contrary being on the person accused of such",,,,,

offence. If the acquisition of such property by such accused has involved more than one ""inter-connected transactions"", one of such",,,,,

transactions being proved to be involving money-laundering, a statutory presumption is raised under Section 23 PMLA that the other",,,,,

transactions form part of the former, the burden to prove facts to the contrary being again on the person claiming otherwise.",,,,,

But, in cases where the enforcement authority seeks to attach other properties, suspecting them to be ""proceeds of crime"", not on the",,,,,

basis of fact that they are actually ""derived or obtained"" from criminal activity but because they are of equivalent “value†as to the",,,,,

proceeds of crime which cannot be traced, it is essential that there be some nexus or link between such property on one hand and the",,,,,

person accused of or charged with the offence of money-laundering on the other. In cases of this nature, the person accused of money-",,,,,

laundering must have had an interest in such property at least till the time of engagement in the proscribed criminal activity from which he is,,,,,

stated to have derived or obtained pecuniary benefit which is to be taken away by attachment or confiscation. It is with this view that PMLA,,,,,

provides for a possible presumption to be drawn, under Section 24(b) using the expression ""may presume"", about a property being",,,,,

involved in money-laundering"" in the case of person other than the one who is charged with the offence of money-laundering. There is no",,,,,

doubt that such presumption, if drawn, may also be rebutted by evidence showing facts to the contrary.",,,,,

Having regard to the above scheme of the law in PMLA, it is clear that if a bonafide third party claimant had acquired interest in the",,,,,

property which is being subjected to attachment at a time anterior to the commission of the criminal activity, the product whereof is",,,,,

suspected as proceeds of crime, the acquisition of such interest in such property (otherwise assumably untainted) by such third party cannot",,,,,

conceivably be on account of intent to defeat or frustrate this law. In this view, it can be concluded that the date or period of the",,,,,

commission of criminal activity which is the basis of such action under PMLA can be safely treated as the cut-off. From this, it naturally",,,,,

follows that an interest in the property of an accused, vesting in a third party acting bona fide, for lawful and adequate consideration,",,,,,

acquired prior to the commission of the proscribed offence evincing illicit pecuniary benefit to the former, cannot be defeated or frustrated",,,,,

by attachment of such property to such extent by the enforcement authority in exercise of its power under Section 8 PMLA.,,,,,

Though the sequitur to the above conclusion is that the bonafide third party claimant has a legitimate right to proceed ahead with,,,,,

enforcement of its claim in accordance with law, notwithstanding the order of attachment under PMLA, the latter action is not rendered",,,,,

irrelevant or unenforceable. To put it clearly, in such situations as above (third party interest being prior to criminal activity) the order of",,,,,

attachment under PMLA would remain valid and operative, even though the charge or encumbrance of such third party subsists but the",,,,,

State action would be restricted to such part of the value of the property as exceeds the claim of the third party.,,,,,

Situation may also arise, as seems to be the factual matrix of some of the cases at hand, wherein a secured creditor, it being a bonafide",,,,,

third party claimant vis-a-vis the alternative attachable property (or deemed tainted property) has initiated action in accordance with law,,,,,

for enforcement of such interest prior to the order of attachment under PMLA, the initiation of the latter action unwittingly having the effect",,,,,

of frustrating the former. Since both actions are in accord with law, in order to co-exist and be in harmony with each other, following the",,,,,

preceding prescription, it would be appropriate that the PMLA attachment, though remaining valid and operative, takes a back-seat",,,,,

allowing the secured creditor bonafide third party claimant to enforce its claim by disposal of the subject property, the remainder of its",,,,,

value, if any, thereafter to be made available for purposes of PMLA.",,,,,

As already noted, the newly inserted provision contained in Sections 26-B to 26-E falling in Chapter (no. IV-A) on “registration by",,,,,

secured creditors and other creditors†of SARFEAESI Act are yet to be notified and brought into force. In the event of said statutory,,,,,

clauses coming into force, a creditor will not be entitled to exercise the right of enforcement, inter alia, of security interest over the property",,,,,

of borrower unless such “security interest†has been duly registered under the said law. Upon such amended law being enforced, a",,,,,

bona fide third party claimant seeking relief against an order of attachment under PMLA will also be obliged to show due compliance with,,,,,

such statutory requirements.,,,,,

As has been highlighted earlier, the provisional order of attachment is subject to confirmation by the adjudicating authority. The order",,,,,

of the adjudicating authority, in turn, is amenable to appeal to the appellate tribunal. The said forum (i.e. the appellate tribunal) may pass",,,,,

such orders as it thinks fit “confirming, modifying or setting aside the order appealed against†[Section 26(4)]. Undoubtedly, an",,,,,

aggrieved party is entitled in law to invoke the said jurisdiction of the appellate tribunal to bring a challenge to the orders of attachment (as,,,,,

confirmed) but, the law in PMLA, at the same time, also confers jurisdiction on the special court to entertain such claim for purposes of",,,,,

restoration of the property during the trial of the case [Section 8]. The jurisdiction to entertain objections to attachment conferred on the,,,,,

appellate tribunal on one hand and, on the special court, on the other, thus, may be co-ordinate, to an extent.",,,,,

An argument, however, was raised, by the appellants that the respondents herein should have approached the special court, instead of",,,,,

the appellate tribunal, for consideration of their respective claims.",,,,,

In view of above-noted legislative scheme, it must be clarified that if the order confirming the attachment has attained finality, or if the",,,,,

order of confiscation has been passed or, further if the trial of a case for the offence under Section 4 PMLA has commenced, the claim of a",,,,,

party asserting to have acted bonafide or having legitimate interest will have to be inquired into and adjudicated upon only by the special,,,,,

court.,,,,,

But, the above exception cannot be applied to all cases of bona fide third party claimants so as to confer a general right to seek",,,,,

release of such property as last mentioned above from attachment even in cases where the encumbrance is created or interest acquired at a,,,,,

time around or after the date or period of criminal activity. In this category of cases, the third party will have the additional burden to prove",,,,,

that it had exercised due diligence having ""taken all reasonable precautions"" at the time of acquisition of such interest or creation of such",,,,,

charge, the jurisdiction to entertain and inquire into such claim and grant relief of release after order of attachment has attainted finality,",,,,,

or of restoration after order of confiscation, vesting only in the special court under Section 8(7) & (8) PMLA. The due diligence is to be",,,,,

tested amongst others, on the touchstone of questions as to whether the party had indulged in transaction after due inquiry about untainted",,,,,

status of the asset or legitimacy of its acquisition.,,,,,

SUMMARISING THE CONCLUSIONS,,,,,

It will be advantageous to summarise the conclusions reached by the above discussion, as under :-",,,,,

(i). The process of attachment (leading to confiscation) of proceeds of crime under PMLA is in the nature of civil sanction which runs,,,,,

parallel to investigation and criminal action vis-a-vis the offence of money-laundering.,,,,,

(ii). The empowered enforcement officer is expected to assess, even if tentatively, the value of proceeds of crime so as to ensure such",,,,,

proceeds or other assets of equivalent value of the offender of money-laundering are subjected to attachment, the evaluation being open to",,,,,

modification in light of evidence gathered during investigation.,,,,,

(iii). The empowered enforcement officer has the authority of law in PMLA to attach not only a ""tainted property"" - that is to say a property",,,,,

acquired or obtained, directly or indirectly, from proceeds of criminal activity constituting a scheduled offence - but also any other asset or",,,,,

property of equivalent value of the offender of money laundering, the latter not bearing any taint but being alternative attachable property",,,,,

(or deemed tainted property) on account of its link or nexus with the offence (or offender) of money-laundering.,,,,,

(iv). If the ""tainted property"" respecting which there is evidence available to show the same to have been derived or obtained as a result of",,,,,

criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is not traceable, or the same for some reason cannot be reached, or to the extent found is",,,,,

deficient, the empowered enforcement officer may attach any other asset (""the alternative attachable property"" or ""deemed tainted",,,,,

property"") of the person accused of (or charged with) offence of money-laundering provided it is near or equivalent in value to the former,",,,,,

the order of confiscation being restricted to take over by the government of illicit gains of crime.,,,,,

(v). If the person accused of (or charged with) the offence of money-laundering objects to the attachment, his claim being that the property",,,,,

attached was not acquired or obtained (directly or indirectly) from criminal activity, the burden of proving facts in support of such claim is",,,,,

to be discharged by him.,,,,,

(vi). The objective of PMLA being distinct from the purpose of RDBA, SARFAESI Act and Insolvency Code, the latter three legislations do",,,,,

not prevail over the former.,,,,,

(vii). The PMLA, by virtue of section 71, has the overriding effect over other existing laws in the matter of dealing with ""money-laundering""",,,,,

and ""proceeds of crime"" relating thereto.",,,,,

(viii). The PMLA, RDBA, SARFAESI Act and Insolvency Code (or such other laws) must co-exist, each to be construed and enforced in",,,,,

harmony, without one being in derogation of the other with regard to the assets respecting which there is material available to show the",,,,,

same to have been ""derived or obtained"" as a result of ""criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence"" and consequently being",,,,,

proceeds of crime"", within the mischief of PMLA.",,,,,

(ix). If the property of a person other than the one accused of (or charged with) the offence of money-laundering, i.e. a third party, is",,,,,

sought to be attached and there is evidence available to show that such property before its acquisition was held by the person accused of,,,,,

money-laundering (or his abettor), or it was involved in a transaction which had interconnection with transactions concerning money-",,,,,

laundering, the burden of proving facts to the contrary so as to seek release of such property from attachment is on the person who so",,,,,

contends.,,,,,

(x). The charge or encumbrance of a third party in a property attached under PMLA cannot be treated or declared as ""void"" unless",,,,,

material is available to show that it was created ""to defeat"" the said law, such declaration rendering such property available for attachment",,,,,

and confiscation under PMLA, free from such encumbrance.",,,,,

(xi). A party in order to be considered as a ""bonafide third party claimant"" for its claim in a property being subjected to attachment under",,,,,

PMLA to be entertained must show, by cogent evidence, that it had acquired interest in such property lawfully and for adequate",,,,,

consideration, the party itself not being privy to, or complicit in, the offence of money-laundering, and that it has made all compliances with",,,,,

the existing law including, if so required, by having said security interest registered.",,,,,

(xii). An order of attachment under PMLA is not illegal only because a secured creditor has a prior secured interest (charge) in the,,,,,

property, within the meaning of the expressions used in RDBA and SARFAESI Act. Similarly, mere issuance of an order of attachment under",,,,,

PMLA does not ipso facto render illegal a prior charge or encumbrance of a secured creditor, the claim of the latter for release (or",,,,,

restoration) from PMLA attachment being dependent on its bonafides.,,,,,

(xiii). If it is shown by cogent evidence by the bonafide third party claimant (as aforesaid), staking interest in an alternative attachable",,,,,

property (or deemed tainted property), claiming that it had acquired the same at a time around or after the commission of the proscribed",,,,,

criminal activity, in order to establish a legitimate claim for its release from attachment it must additionally prove that it had taken “due",,,,,

diligence"" (e.g. taking reasonable precautions and after due inquiry) to ensure that it was not a tainted asset and the transactions indulged",,,,,

in were legitimate at the time of acquisition of such interest.,,,,,

(xiv). If it is shown by cogent evidence by the bonafide third party claimant (as aforesaid), staking interest in an alternative attachable",,,,,

property (or deemed tainted property) claiming that it had acquired the same at a time anterior to the commission of the proscribed criminal,,,,,

activity, the property to the extent of such interest of the third party will not be subjected to confiscation so long as the charge or",,,,,

encumbrance of such third party subsists, the attachment under PMLA being valid or operative subject to satisfaction of the charge or",,,,,

encumbrance of such third party and restricted to such part of the value of the property as is in excess of the claim of the said third party.,,,,,

(xv). If the bonafide third party claimant (as aforesaid) is a ""secured creditor"", pursuing enforcement of ""security interest"" in the property",,,,,

(secured asset) sought to be attached, it being an alternative attachable property (or deemed tainted property), it having acquired such",,,,,

interest from person(s) accused of (or charged with) the offence of money-laundering (or his abettor), or from any other person through",,,,,

such transaction (or inter-connected transactions) as involve(s) criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, such third party (secured",,,,,

creditor) having initiated action in accordance with law for enforcement of such interest prior to the order of attachment under PMLA, the",,,,,

directions of such attachment under PMLA shall be valid and operative subject to satisfaction of the charge or encumbrance of such third,,,,,

party and restricted to such part of the value of the property as is in excess of the claim of the said third party.,,,,,

(xvi). In the situations covered by the preceding two subparagraphs, the bonafide third party claimant shall be accountable to the",,,,,

enforcement authorities for the ""excess"" value of the property subjected to PMLA attachment.",,,,,

(xvii).If the order confirming the attachment has attained finality, or if the order of confiscation has been passed, or if the trial of a case",,,,,

under Section 4 PMLA has commenced, the claim of a party asserting to have acted bonafide or having legitimate interest in the nature",,,,,

mentioned above will be inquired into and adjudicated upon only by the special court.,,,,,

DECISION ON THE APPEALS,,,,,

In view of the above conclusions, the impugned decisions of the appellate tribunal will have to be set aside. There is a need for further",,,,,

scrutiny particularly on facts, of the claims of the respondents, in their appeals which were presented before the said forum to challenge the",,,,,

orders of attachment, as confirmed by the adjudicating authority in the five cases. This may be illustrated hereinbelow.",,,,,

It does appear that the assets which have been the subject matter of attachment in the appeals at hand are not “tainted propertyâ€,",,,,,

the same having been seemingly acquired prior to the criminal activity giving rise to accusations of money-laundering. But, they are sought",,,,,

to be attached and subjected to eventual confiscation on account of they being the alternative attachable properties or deemed tainted,,,,,

properties, which is permissible in law. The audi car (subject matter of first appeal) was acquired by a transaction which has no direct",,,,,

connection with the case of money-laundering. However, there is no clarity as to the value of proceeds of crime which are to be confiscated",,,,,

as against value of the attached property as indeed the extent of the debt yet to be recovered by the secured creditor. The monetary gains,,,,,

made by the transactions which are subject matter of the accusations of money-laundering on account of illicit foreign exchange,,,,,

transactions (third appeal) or the case of cheating by use of fabricated defence supply orders (fourth appeal), both involving public",,,,,

servants, require closer scrutiny as to the claim of the respondent banks of bonafide action. Though there is no such element of complicity",,,,,

on part of any of the officials of the respondent banks in the case relating to fictitious hospital equipment (second appeal) or the one,,,,,

involving consortium of banks (fifth appeal), scrutiny respecting legitimacy and bonafide of the claim on the touchstone, inter alia, of the",,,,,

subsisting value of the secured interest and chronology of events leading to attachment would be necessary.,,,,,

It will be appropriate that such further scrutiny as is necessary on the touchstone of above principles is undertaken by the appellate,,,,,

tribunal after calling for further responses (and inputs) from each side.,,,,,

Ordered accordingly.,,,,,

Thus, the appeals are allowed. The impugned decisions of the appellate tribunal are set aside. The matters arising out of the appeals of",,,,,

the respondents stand revived and restored for further consideration by the appellate tribunal. The parties are directed to appear before,,,,,

the said forum on 15.04.2019.,,,,,

The appeals, and the applications filed therewith, stand disposed of in above terms. â€​",,,,,

During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the Appellant Banks submitted the following;,,,,,

a) All legal proceedings for recovery were initiated by the Banks prior to provisional attachment.,,,,,

b) That it is clear that the Appellant Banks as institutions are not privy to or complicity in, the offence of money-laundering as;",,,,,

i. The criminal proceedings against the borrowers were set in motion at the instance of Indian Overseas Bank. The F.I.R. has not been registered,,,,,

against the Appellants.,,,,,

ii. That the security interests of the Appellants in the properties in question have been acquired lawfully and for adequate consideration.,,,,,

c) That, due diligence was exercised by the Banks in taking the properties in question as security.",,,,,

d) The subject properties are not tainted properties.,,,,,

The bonafide as well as due diligence in sanctioning the loans by the appellants to M/s. CCL have not been doubted by the respondent no.1 at any,,,,,

point of time. It could not be explained by the respondent no.1 as to how the properties in question are acquired out of proceeds of crime.,,,,,

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant banks are victims and not an offender, the public money is stuck due to the",,,,,

proceedings under PMLA.,,,,,

The appellants are secured creditors and bonafide claimants of the properties. The security interests have been created on the properties in,,,,,

question and there are legitimate banking transactions. There is no allegation that the appellants have not exercised due diligence in sanctioning loans,,,,,

to purchase the properties in question.,,,,,

The properties have been mortgaged much prior to the date of registering of FIR & ECIR. The Provisional Attachment Order has been passed on,,,,,

29.03.2016.,,,,,

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the recent decision of “The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi Vs. Axis Bank &",,,,,

Ors.,†reported in 2019 SCC Online Del 7854 (hereinafter referred to as the “Axis Bank Decisionâ€) has rightly held that the interest of a third",,,,,

party in the property of an accused, acquired prior to the commission of the proscribed offence cannot be defeated or frustrated by attachment of",,,,,

such property under Section 8 of the Act.,,,,,

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court further recognized the right of such third party to proceed with enforcement of its interest in accordance with,,,,,

law such that while the order of attachment under the Act would not be rendered irrelevant, yet it would take a backseat such that the State action",,,,,

would be restricted to such part of the value of the property as exceeds the claim of the third party, if any. (Reference Paragraph No. 162-164 of the",,,,,

Axis Bank Decision) speak for itself. In terms with the Axis Bank Decision, the claim of the Respondent to the properties would be restricted to such",,,,,

part of the aggregate value of the properties attached as exceeds the claim of the Appellants.,,,,,

In terms with the statutory safeguards incorporated in the Act, any party aggrieved by the confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order by",,,,,

the Adjudicating Authority may challenge such confirmation in an appeal to this Tribunal under Section 26 of the Act and then before the Hon’ble,,,,,

High Court under Section 42 of the Act against the order of this Tribunal. Accordingly, under the legislative and statutory scheme of the Act, unless a",,,,,

party has exhausted its remedies in appeal right up to the Hon’ble High Court, an order confirming the attachment cannot be said to have attained",,,,,

finality. Therefore, this Tribunal is fully equipped and possesses the requisite jurisdiction in terms with the Act as the court of first appeal, to adjudicate",,,,,

upon the pleas of the Appellant and determine the bonafides and legitimacy of its claims as well as the legality of the Provisional Attachment Order.,,,,,

There is no force in the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of Enforcement Directorate that claims of third parties are to be solely,,,,,

adjudicated by the Special Court before whom trial is pending. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the Axis Bank Decision has held that the claim,,,,,

of a party asserting a bonafide and legitimate claim would be inquired into by the Special Court only if the order confirming the attachment “has,,,,,

attained finalityâ€. An order cannot be said to have attained finality until and unless all the remedies under the Act have been exhausted. The Tribunal,,,,,

has only to examine the impugned order and is empowered under Section 26 of the Act as to whether the attachment order has been passed as per,,,,,

law or not. This Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction on this issue. The Appellant Banks are otherwise entitled to approach the Special Court for,,,,,

release of properties even during the pendency of appeals or after allowing the appeals. The validity of the confirmation of attachment order is only to,,,,,

be considered by this Tribunal.,,,,,

The impugned order confirming the provisional attachment order is passed without application of mind and without understanding the law, it is",,,,,

liable to be quashed with regards to mortgaged properties in question.,,,,,

No doubt, this tribunal is clear in its mind that if the properties in question acquired from proceeds of crime and at the time of creating security, the",,,,,

banks are aware and still the loans were sanctioned, then said properties can be attached even in lieu of value thereof if the borrowers has concealed",,,,,

or is concealing the proceeds of crime, but under those circumstances, there must be material or prima facie evidence on record before passing the",,,,,

provisional attachment order.,,,,,

This order is being passed in relation to secured properties in favour of banks which are not purchased from proceeds of crime.,,,,,

The appellants are always at liberty to approach the Special Court to initiate the proceedings for disposal of secured properties, if so desired, the",,,,,

appellants to deposit the excess amount if such situation will arise.,,,,,

The Appellants have nothing to do and have no connection with the allegation of crime committed by the borrowers, so far as money transferred",,,,,

from bank accounts to acquire the properties in question directly. The secured properties are admittedly not derived from criminal activities or,,,,,

proceeds of crime. The scope of the PMLA is to punish the accused person and not to punish the innocent people who are not involved in the crime,,,,,

within the meaning of Section 2 (u) read with Section 3 of the Act.,,,,,

There is no nexus whatsoever, between the alleged crime and the appellants who have secured properties by way of mortgage and are victims of",,,,,

the fraud and innocent party. The definition of proceeds of crime as per Section 2(1) (u) of the PML Act comprises of the property which is derived,,,,,

or obtained as a result of criminal activities. The secured property is not acquired from proceeds of crime either directly or indirectly.,,,,,

From the materials available on record it becomes clear that the money have been advanced for the purchase of the properties by the Appellant,,,,,

Banks. Undisputedly, the money was paid directly from the Bank accounts to the seller and thereafter the mortgages were created. It is also not",,,,,

disputed that the money released by the Banks was sanctioned for the said purpose and were part of the financing the project.,,,,,

The Enforcement Directorate (Respondent no.1) does not dispute the fact that the Appellant Banks had initiated action under the SARFAESI Act,",,,,,

2002 much before the registration of the case under the PMLA Act. The copy of the ECIR No. DLZO/10/2013 is dated 20.06.2013, whereas the",,,,,

Appellant Banks had issued notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 13.08.2012 and in furtherance to the same had issued possession",,,,,

notice under section 13(4) on 22.11.2012, 24.11.2012 and 03.12.2012 which is prior to registering the ECIR and the respondent no. 1 was fully aware",,,,,

about all factual position.,,,,,

The other undisputed fact is when the PAO was passed by the Respondent no.1 in 2016, the recovery suits filed by the Banks before the Ld. Debt",,,,,

Recovery Tribunal and action under SARFAESI Act, 2002 were pending and a stay order passed by the Ld. DRT, Delhi was operational since, 2013.",,,,,

It appears from record that Respondent no.1 and the Adjudicating Authority is quite evident from the fact that in the confirmation order of,,,,,

Adjudicating Authority at Page 41 wherein the payment with regard to the properties of M/s. Century Communication Ltd. at 5th & 6th Floor,,,,,

including 7th Floor Terrace Portion Landmark, Bandra (West Mumbai â€" 400050) (1433 Sq. Ft. 1913 Sq. Ft. & 4319 Sq. Ft. Terrace Portion) the",,,,,

payment trail is shown to be made in 2006, whereas the Enforcement Directorate, itself record the fact that the ownership of the said property is with",,,,,

Respondent No.4 M/s. Century Communication Ltd. since 18.03.2004. The said properties are under the control of the Appellant Banks throughout,,,,,

mortgage since 13.08.2004 and the said fact which has been stated by the Appellants in their appeals has not been disputed by the Respondent no.1.,,,,,

The properties of the Appellant Banks cannot be attached or confiscated when there is no illegality or unlawfulness in the title of the Appellant,,,,,

Banks and there is no charge of money laundering against the Banks. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1",,,,,

submitted that some of the bank officials were involved and they are being prosecuted by the CBI. But there is no allegation against the Banks as,,,,,

institutions. The Banks are victims.,,,,,

The mortgage of properties is the transfer under the Transfer of Property Act as there is no dispute as regards the origin of funds or the title of,,,,,

the properties. As far as the Appellant Banks are concerned, the Banks have to recover its outstanding dues by taking over the possession of the",,,,,

mortgaged properties in case the concerned borrowers are not able to pay back the credit facilities availed by them and by way of the SARFAESI,,,,,

provisions these properties are being taken in possession by the Appellant Banks so that recovery can be made.,,,,,

From the discussion made above, I am of the view that there is no nexus whatsoever between the alleged offence and the Appellant Banks as",,,,,

institutions who are the mortgagee of the properties in question which were purchased from the bank’s money and mortgage of the same with,,,,,

them. Thus, no case of money laundering is made out against Appellant Banks who had sanctioned the amounts which are untainted and pure money.",,,,,

The Adjudicating Authority has not appreciated the facts and law involved in the matter. The primary objective of Section 8 of PMLA is that the,,,,,

Adjudicating Authority to take a prima facie view on available material and facts produced. The contentions raised by the Respondent's Advocate,,,,,

have no substance. The provisional attachment order in the present matters is bad in law, hence liable to be set aside.",,,,,

In the present appeals, it is an admitted position that the loans were given by the banks in good faith who have suffered loss because of non-",,,,,

payment of money by the borrower. The borrowers are also arrayed as respondents in the appeals filed by the banks. It is evident from the said,,,,,

proviso that incase the claimant would be able to satisfy the Special Court that it has acted in good faith and suffered the loss despite of having taken,,,,,

all the reasonable precautions and is also not involved in the offence of money laundering then the Special Court is empowered to restore such,,,,,

properties during the trial of the case. In the facts of the present case, the mortgaged properties are not purchased from the proceeds of crime.",,,,,

If paras 167 to 169 are read co-jointly with paras 163 and 165 of the order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court order dated 02.04.2019, it is clear",,,,,

from the same that if the attachment has attained finality or if order of confiscation has been passed, the claim and legitimate interest will have to be",,,,,

inquired by the Special Court. The said findings are correct if the situation in the present appears are the same. In the present case, attachment has",,,,,

not attained finality or any confiscation has been passed or any trial has commenced under the Section 4 of PMLA against the appellants. In fact,",,,,,

appellants are innocent parties and victims also. The trial against accused parties may take number of years.,,,,,

In view of judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi, I am of the view that the Provisional Attachment Order dated 29.03.2016 passed by ED",,,,,

and impugned order dt. 22.09.2016 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, PMLA, confirming the Provisional Attachment Order is liable to be quashed",,,,,

and set aside.,,,,,

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, vide order dated 06.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.1090/2018 in the matter of Directorate of Enforcement Versus",,,,,

Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. has clarified the “status quo†order of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the appeal against the order dated,,,,,

02.04.2019 passed in the matter of Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement Versus Axis Bank & batch matters in CRL.A. No.143/2018. The",,,,,

order dated 06.12.2019 of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi is reproduced below:,,,,,

“ ORDER,,,,,

 06.12.2019,,,,,

Crl.M.A.42109/2019 (Exemption),,,,,

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.",,,,,

This application is, accordingly, disposed of.",,,,,

Crl.M.A. 42108/2019,,,,,

Vide the present application, the applicant/respondents seek clarification of the order dated 01.11.2019 as to whether the Tribunal shall",,,,,

proceed with the present matter.,,,,,

Vide order dated 01.11.2019, this court remanded the matter to the Appellate Tribunal for PMLA and directed the said Tribunal to restore",,,,,

the appeal and after hearing both the parties decide the same within six weeks from the receipt of this order.,,,,,

The said order was passed on the consent made by the parties and in view of the order passed by this court in Crl.A. 143/2018 in Deputy,,,,,

Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi vs. Axix Bank & Ors. and other batch matters.",,,,,

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicants/petitioner submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted status quo,,,,,

qua the property in question, however, there is no status quo to proceed with the matter by any court including the Appellate Tribunal of",,,,,

PMLA. This fact has not been disputed by counsel for the respondent.,,,,,

Thus, it is clarified that the order of the status quo of the Supreme Court is regarding the disposal of the property, therefore, Appellate",,,,,

Tribunal of PMLA is directed to comply with the order dated 01.11.2019 passed by this court within six weeks from today.,,,,,

In view of above directions, the application is disposed of.",,,,,

Copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of Court Master. â€​,,,,,

In view of the said clarificatory order no order in respect of disposal of the property can be passed by this Appellate Tribunal.,,,,,

In the light of above, the present appeals are allowed in terms of the Judgment dated 02.04.2019 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in",,,,,

Crl. A. No. 143/2018 in the matter of Dy. Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi Vs. Axis Bank & other batch matters.",,,,,

The impugned order dated 22.09.2016 is set-aside. Consequently, Provisional Attachment Order is also quashed in respect of questioned properties",,,,,

mortgaged with the appellants.,,,,,

No costs.,,,,,