By this appeal, a challenge has been made to the order dated 14.10.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order (“PAO”) dated 10.05.2024.

Brief facts of the case:

2. The provisional attachment of the property was caused after recording of the ECIR and initiation of investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( in short “the Act of 2002”). The ECIR was recorded on registration of FIR dated 20.03.2015 at Santacruz Police Station for the offences under Section 34, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”). It was based on the complaint of Mr. Mahesh J Pariyani against Mr. Kiran Peswani, Mr. Gopal Thakur, Mr. Hasmukh Thakur and Mr. Roshan Sheth. It was alleged that the accused with the intention to deceive , gained Mr. Pariyani’s trust and induced him to buy a flat in a Monarch Group project, promoting him to pay Rs. 7 Crores. To make the transactions appear legitimate, they provided allotment letter, an agreement for sale, an irrevocable power of attorney, a possession letter and a no-lien letter. However, the flat was sold to another person.

3. The other FIR was registered on 27.10.2016 at Naupada Police Station for the offences under Section 406, 420, 468, 471 read with 120B of IPC. It was based on the complaint of Mr. Ashok Ratanlal Agarwal, Senior Vice President of M/s Capri Global Capital Limited (“CGCL”) against Mr. Hasmukh Thakur, Mr. Gopal Thakur and others. It was alleged that the accused obtained a loan of Rs.45 Crore from CGCL on 09.12.2013 for their two projects, M/s Monarch Brookfield and M/s Monarch Imperial by mortgaging 113 flats of Monarch Brookfield and 103 flats of Monarch Imperial. An amount of Rs.40 Crore was disbursed between 29.12.2013 and 07.01.2014 on a condition that proceeds of sale of the flats would be deposited in the designated escrow account. However, the accused did not follow the instructions, rather, it was found that the mortgaged flats have been sold to others, deceiving CGCL. The charge sheet in reference to it was filed on 10.01.2018 with the addition of offence.

4. Another FIR dated 28.04.2017 was registered at Kharghar Police Station for the same offence on a complaint by Mr. Narsingh Gopal Rathod against Monarch builders containing the similar allegation as was made by Mr. Mahesh J Pariyani. Yet, another FIR was registered on 08.06.2017 against the accused containing the same allegation i.e. they booked the flats with the receipt of the amount but the flats were not registered and delivered to them and hence it was taken that approximately 130 flat buyers have been cheated on by the accused. Another FIR was registered on 14.09.2017 and 27.09.2017 with different Police Stations containing similar allegations. Therefore, number of FIRs were registered against the accused.

5. The appellant is alleged to be the recipient of the proceeds of crime from the accused company, M/s Monarch Builders. It was transferred to the appellant to park the proceeds so that it is not exposed the consequences of the provisional attachment of the property. The provisional attachment of the property was caused by the respondent to the extent of the value of the proceeds in the appellant’s hands. The PAO has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority finding a case of money laundering and layering of proceeds by the appellant.

6. Aggrieved by the PAO passed and its confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority, this appeal has been filed.

Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant:

7. Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellant, Mr. Jitendra Mohanlal Katarmal received a sum of Rs.1 Crore from the accused company. However, it was an unsecured loan. In the light of the aforesaid, there was no reason for the respondent to hold it to be nothing but an effort of the accused to park the proceeds to save it from the provisional attachment. The loan was extended for the legitimate purpose and therefore the provisional attachment of the property for a v