APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI

1. MP-PBPT-4841/DLI/2023 (Exemp.)

MP-PBPT-4842/DLI/2023 (Stay)

FPA-PBPT-3246/DLI/2023 Shri Rajranjani Jewellers Pv. Ltd. … Appellant

2. MP-PBPT-4843/DLI/2023 (Exemp.)

MP-PBPT-4844/DLI/2023 (Stay)

FPA-PBPT-3247/DLI/2023 Shri Mahavir Jewellers … Appellant Versus The Initiating Officer, BPU, Delhi … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the appellants : Shri Anukul Raj Shri Prateek Sharma Shri Saumitra Mishra Ms. Nikita Raj, Shri T. Balla Shri J. Prakash, Shri Sandeep Agarwal Shri Sankalp Srivastava, Advocates For the respondent : Shri Yash Batra, Advocate For Shri Manmeet S. Arora, S.P.P CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI BALESH KUMAR : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

01.05.2024 These two appeals have been filed to challenge the order dated

27.09.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority to confirm the provisional attachment order dated 29.07.2020.

The appellants were not party to the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority. The appeal has been preferred only in reference to certain observations/ directions which have restrained the appellant to clear its liabilities towards the beneficial owner.

The counsel for the appellant has referred to certain paras of the order impugned herein and more specifically, the following para where, while sending the copy, it was referred to the appellants also. The same is quoted herein for ready reference “ Copy to:-

I. Beneficial Owner M/s Rishabh Trading Co. (Proprietorship concern of Shri Ankit Jain), 1157/1124, G.F., Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.

II) Debtors

1. Sh. Mahavir Jewellers (Propritor Sh. Sunil Jain, 133, Bank Enclave, Laxmi Nagar, Shakarpur, Delhi- 110092) with the directions that the attached property in the form of outstanding debt against M/s Rishabh Trading Co. (Proprietorship concern of Sh. Ankit Jain) amounting to Rs. 1,97,40,488/- shall not be transferred, converted, disposed, moved or encumbered or dealt with in any manner whatsoever until or unless specifically permitted to do so by the undersigned.

2. Shri Rajrani Jewellers Pvt Ltd (Shop at Plot No. -46-A, Pandav Nagar, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092) with the directions that the attached property in the form of outstanding debt against M/s Rishabh Trading Co. (Proprietorship concern of Sh. Ankit Jain) amounting to Rs. 99,98,731/- shall not be transferred, converted, disposed, moved or encumbered or dealt with in any manner whatsoever until or unless specifically permitted to do so by the undersigned.”

According to the appellant, they have been restrained to clear their liabilities towards M/s Rishav Trading though keen to discharge themselves from the liability which is of a sum of Rs. 1,97,40,488 of M/s Mahavir Jewellers and Rs. 99,98,731 of M/s Rajranjani Jewellers. It is otherwise admitted that impugned order is not adverse to the appellant in any respect, rather they have not been held either the benamidaar or the beneficial owner, rather their names have been reflected to indicate that they owe certain liabilities towards Rishav Trading. The prayer is to allow the appellant to pay off their liabilities towards M/s Rishav Trading which may then be kept subject to directions quoted above.

We have considered the submissions and find that the impugned order does not contain any adverse findings against the appellant so as to maintain this appeal. The objection for the maintainability of the appeal has been raised mainly for that reason. The counsel for the appellant however, referred to a para of the order which in our opinion is not a direction rather copy of the order was marked to many: i) the beneficial owner and thereafter ii) the debtors which are the appellants. The copy of the order was then marked to benamidaars at item no. 3.

To mark a copy of the order would not amount to a direction contained in the order however it contains certain direction thus needs to be clarified. It is made clear that mere marking of the copy to the debtors would not re