SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
Punjab National Bank – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur – Respondent
FPA-PMLA-2633/RP/2018



FPA-PMLA-2633/RP/2018

Page 1 of 22

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR SAFEMA, FEMA, PMLA, NDPS, PBPT ACT

AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 02.01.2019

FPA-PMLA-2633/RP/2018

Punjab National Bank

…

Appellant

Versus

The Deputy Director,

Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur

…

Respondent

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

For the appellant :

Shri Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Advocate

For the respondent

:

Shri Atul Tripathi, Advocate

CORAM

JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

:

CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

FPA-PMLA-2633/RP/2018

1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellants against the order

dated 17.09.2018 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in O.C. No. 952 of

2018 in PAO No. 03/2018 dated 28.03.2018 in ECIR/RPSZO/01/2015 dated

13.01.2015.

2. Admitted facts are that the Respondent No.2 had approached the

Appellant for availing Consortium Finance of Rs 546.77 Cr i.e. [Term Loan,

Working Capital Limits, Fund Based and Non-Fund Based].

FPA-PMLA-2633/RP/2018

Page 2 of 22

3. The Appellant Bank (Being the lead Bank in the consortium of Banks)

pursuant to the request made by the Respondent No. 2, sanctioned Term Loan,

Working Capital Limits, Fund Based and Non-Fund Based Rs 546.77 Cr to the

Respondent No.2 Company on 27.06.2008.

4. The Respondent No.2 Company had executed memorandum of entry,

inter alia, evidencing the creation of first charge by way of equitable mortgage

and Hypothecation qua the property in issue.

5. By provisional attachment order No.3/2018 dated 28.03.2018 passed by

Respondent

no.1

in

ECIR/RPSZO/01/2015,

inter

alia,

the

following

Moveable/Immoveable

asset

which

has

been

hypothecated/Equitably

Mortgaged to the Appellant was attached. The details of the same is described

herein below:-

S.N. Description of the Property

Value (In Rs.)

1. Plant and Machinery of M/s Vandana

Vidhyut

Ltd.

Valued

at

Rs

1711,13,74,636/-

situated

at

Katghora, District-Korba, Chattisgarh

to the extent of Rs 335,46,23,910/-

Rs 335,46,23,910/-

2. Factory Building of M/s Vandana

Vidhyut

Ltd,

Valued

at

Rs

266,59,72,781/- situated at Katghora,

District- Korba, Chattisgarh

Rs 266,59,72,781/-

3. Land Valued at Rs 1,13,79,809/- of

M/s Vandana Vidhyut situated at

Katghira,

District-

Korba,

Chhatisgarh.

Rs 1,13,79,809/-

TOTAL

Rs. 603,19,76,500/-

FPA-PMLA-2633/RP/2018

Page 3 of 22

6. The Respondent no.1 lodged original complaint no.952/2018 before the

Adjudicating Authority (PMLA). The appellant was arrayed as defendant no.3 in

the original complaint no.952/2018.

7. The Adjudicating Authority, Pursuant to the original complaint

no.952/2018 filed by the Respondent No.1 has issued a show cause notice

dated 16.05.2018, inter alia, directing the Appellant herein to appear before Ld

Adjudicating Authority.

8. The NCT Mumbai, vide order dated 26.04.2018 has declared Moratorium

against the Respondent No.2 Company on the Application made by SBI [Being

a Financial Creditor as well as a member of the Consortium of Banks] under

Section 7 of the IBC Code, 2016.

9. The appellant on 30.07.2018 filed a detailed reply to the original

complaint no.952/2018 filed by the Respondent No.1 before the Adjudicating

Authority (PMLA).

The Respondent No.1 filled the rejoinder dated 13.08.2018 to the Reply

filed by the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA).

10. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order

No. 3/2018 by the impugned order dated 17.09.2018, which has been

Hypothecated/mortgaged to the Appellant Bank.

11. The present appeal has been filed on various grounds challenging the

impugned order as well as the provisional attachment order.

FPA-PMLA-2633/RP/2018

Page 4 of 22

12. This tribunal has, inter alia, time and again in large number of cases,

held that the secured asset of a bank cannot be attached or confiscated when

there is no illegality or unlawfulness in the title of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top