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

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1721

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ritu Bahri, Manisha Batra, JJ.
Pankaj Bansal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No. 14536 of 2023
Decided On : 26-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties :Mr. R.S. Rai Senior, Advocate, Mr. Vikram Chaudhri Senior, Advocate, Mr. Kunal Dawar, Mr. Vipul Sharma, Mr. Rubina Virmani, Ms. Shruti Mandhotra, Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Ms. Hargun Sandhu, Mr. Keshvam Chaudhri, Mr. S.V. Raju Assistant Solicitor General of India, Mr. Jagjot Singh Lalli D.A.G., Mr. Lokesh Narang Senior Panel Counsel for Govt. of India, Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Mr. Ankit Bhatia, Ms. Madhumitha Kesavan, Mr. Hitarth Raja, Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Mr. Kavish Garach, Mr. Manisha Dubey, Mr. G.N. Ghosh, Mr. Gaurav Saini

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 19(1) - Constitutionality challenged - Orders of remand to custody of petitioners upheld - Allegations of money laundering involving significant funds and connections with shell companies and judicial misconduct - Petitioners' arguments of illegal arrest and remand procedures rejected as unsubstantiated - Judicial orders duly considered by Special Court. (Paras 1-8)

(B) Judicial Remand - Authority and procedure - Detention valid if based on proper court orders - Petitioners failed to demonstrate violations justifying release from custody. (Paras 3, 7)

(C) Judicial Functions - Remand orders subjected to judicial scrutiny and without mechanical application of law - Serious allegations necessitate continued custody pending further investigation. (Paras 5, 8)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged remand orders while alleging illegal arrest under PMLA, claiming procedures were not followed. Investigations revealed links to substantial financial misconduct involving multiple companies.

Findings of Court:
The court found orders to remand petitioners to be validly issued after comprehensive evaluation. No grounds laid for challenging the legality of detention.

Issues: Whether section 19(1) of PMLA violates constitutional safeguards, and whether remand orders were valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that remand orders are judicial acts that uphold the integrity of the judicial process, stating that petitioners showed no ground to question their legitimacy.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background on allegations against petitioners. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments for illegal arrest and remand. (Para 3 , 4)
3. respondents' stance on case maintainability. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court's decision based on seriousness of allegations. (Para 7 , 8)

Judgment

Ms. Ritu Bahri, J.

The petitioners Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal have filed these petitions challenging vires of Section 19 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short “PMLA”) and have further made prayer for quashing the orders dated 15.06.2023, 20.06.2023 and 26.06.2023 (Annexures P-18, P-20 and P-21) respectively whereby they had been ordered to be remanded to the custody of respondent No.2 and then to judicial custody. Their prayer for declaring Section 19 (1) of PMLA as unconstitutional had been rejected on 20.07.2023. So far as, the relief claimed by the petitioners for quashing the orders (Annexures P-18, P-20 and P-21) is concerned, before considering the same, certain facts as emanating from the record are required to be mentioned. The same are that several FIRs had been registered against various IREO group of companies viz., IREO Pvt. Ltd., IREO Grace Realtech, IREO Waterfront Pvt. Limited and IREO Fiveriver Pvt. Limited etc. on the basis of complaints submitted by several buyers who had alleged that they had booked plots in projects being developed by the above cited companies and had handed over different amounts of money. However, they had not been handed over the possession of properties sought to be purchased by them and the money paid by them had been siphoned off. Investigations were conducted and it was revealed that IREO group had received several crores of rupees and huge amount of money had been transferred outside India in last some years in the guise of buyback of shares, redemption, purchase of shares etc. on instructions of one Lalit Goyal who was the Managing Director-Vice Chairman of these companies. The said Mr. Lalit Goyal was arrested on 16.11.2021. His statements were recorded several times during the course of investigation and he was booked under the provisions of PMLA. It was revealed during the course of investigation that huge amount of money was diverted to M3M group of companies by IREO group companies after layering of funds and all the companies through which funds were routed by IREO group to M3M group were shell companies owned/controlled/managed by M3M group and its controller only. The involvement of M3M group in money laundering with Mr. Lalit Goyal of IREO group was revealed. The company M/s M3M India Limited was founded by the petitioner Basant Bansal and one Roop Kumar Bansal and the petitioner Pankaj Bansal was also a Director in this group of companies. Sh. Lalit Goyal had been arrested and was subsequently given concession of bail. During the course of investigation, the present petitioners were also found involved in laundering the money diverted by IREO group of companies and were booked along with accused Roop Bansal. They secured concession of anticipatory bail from High Court of Delhi.

2. It is also revealed that on 17.04.2023, FIR No.0006 was registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Panchkula on the basis of some information received against Mr. Sudhir Parmar posted as Special Judge for dealing with cases of Enforcement Directorate and CBI cases at Panchkula on the allegations that he was showing favourism to Lalit Goyal, owner of IREO group of companies, Roop Bansal and his brother Basant Bansal who were owners of M3M and were cited as accused and cases against whom were pending before his Court. As per the source information, Mr. Sudhir Parmar while being posted as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gurugram and by abusing his official position, had got undue favours from the owners of M3M and IREO group of companies by getting appointed his nephew Mr. Ajay Parmar @ Amrit as a Legal Advisor in M3M company on salary package of approximately Rs.12 lac per annum whic

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top