APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI

1. FPA-PMLA-4454/CHN/2022 S. Srividhya … Appellant

2. MP-PMLA-13226/CHN/2023 (Exemp.)

FPA-PMLA-6566/CHN/2023 Smt. S Srividhya … Appellant

3. FPA-PMLA-4199/CHN/2021 Shri K. Subburaj … Appellant

4. MP-PMLA-13235/CHN/2023 (Exemp.)

MP-PMLA-13236/CHN/2023 (Misc.)

FPA-PMLA-6569/CHN/2023 Shri N K Pothiraj … Appellant

5. FPA-PMLA-5829/CHN/2023 K Subburaj … Appellant

6. MP-PMLA-11603/CHN/2023 (Exemp.)

FPA-PMLA-5830/CHN/2023 N K Pothiraj … Appellant

7. MP-PMLA-11604/CHN/2023 (Exemp.)

FPA-PMLA-5831/CHN/2023 S. Srividya … Appellant

8. MP-PMLA-11605/CHN/2023 (Exemp.)

FPA-PMLA-5832/CHN/2023 S. Sreepriya … Appellant

9. MP-PMLA-11606/CHN/2023 (Exemp.)

FPA-PMLA-5833/CHN/2023 S. Vimala … Appellant

10. MP-PMLA-11607/CHN/2023 (Exemp.)

FPA-PMLA-5834/CHN/2023 P. Lalitha … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Ms. Deepika Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Aditya Singla, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

02.04.2026 Two set of appeals under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short `the Act of 2002’) have been preferred against separate orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority allowing retention of seized and continuance of the frozen property. The first order was passed on 19.07.2021 in O.A 439/2021 while the second order was passed on 06.12.2021 in O.A 449/2021. The connected appeal is arising out of the OC bearing No. 1626/2022 in reference to the provisional attachment of the property. It was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 22.08.2022.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants argued three set of appeals in reference to common facts. It is to avoid repetition of the arguments. However, separate legal arguments were raised in reference to the appeals arising out of the seizure and freezing of the property. Therefore, we would be first referring to the common facts.

Brief facts of the case:

3. It is a case where an FIR was registered by Deputy Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Trichy Zone alleging that M/s Cethar Ltd., its Directors and unknown persons systematically committed fraud and cheated the Indian Bank and other consortium banks financed the company. The main allegations contained in the FIR are as under:

(i) M/s Cethar Ltd. Trichy and its Directors committed criminal offences by fraudulently inducing Indian Bank and other member Banks in the Consortium, to grant various credit facilities by suppressing various relevant facts from the knowledge of the banks;

(ii) The Director of M/s Cethar Ltd. misutilised and misappropriated the banks funds after availing the credit facilities, thereby causing unlawful loss to the banks;

(iii) Due to the criminal activities of the Directors of the company, the leading bank i.e. Indian Bank faced loss to the extent of Rs.231.23 Crores;

(iv) The company also availed facilities from the other banks under consortium arrangement and the total sanctioned amount including Indian Bank amount is Rs.1344.96 Crores, thereby it has caused unlawful gain to the accused and various unknown persons to that extent;

(v) In the FIR, it is also mentioned that the major reasons for the loan becoming NPA are inter alia due to large scale diversion of funds for purpose/objectives other than the purposes for which loan was sanctioned and the resultant liquidity crunch;

(vi) The Directors of the company dishonestly diverted the funds so as to get monetary gain and cheat the financial institutions. It is observed that the Directors mutually made criminal conspiracy in a premeditated manner.

4. Based on the allegations aforesaid, the ECIR was recorded, followed by the investigation under the Act of 2002. It was found that the company M/s Cethar Ltd. had disposed of fixed assets without information to the concerned bank. It was also found that the cash credit facility was utilized