Karnataka High Court
Deputy Director vs Rajendra Kumar Jain on 14 November, 2025
-1-
MSA No. 12 of 2020
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.12 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
PRESENTLY OFFICE AT
4TH FLOOR, KAISER-I-HIND
CURIMBHOY ROAD, BALLARD ESTATE
MUMBAI - 400 001
BY ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
SRI RAJESH GOEL.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJENDRAKUMAR JAIN
S/C MR. S.M. JAIN
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
RESIDENT OF NO.F-31
KALPATHRU APARTMENTS
Digitally signed by NO.12 MADHAVANAGAR
MOUNESHWARAPPA
NAGARATHNA RACE COURSE ROAD
Location: High Court
of Karnataka BENGALURU-560 001.
2. STATE BANK OF INDIA
STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH
2ND FLOOR, OFFICE COMPLEX BUILDING
LHO COMPOUND, ST. MARKS ROAD
BENGALURU-560 025
BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
SMT. HEMALATA P.K.
3. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
A BODY CORPORATE UNDER BANKING
COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND UNDERTAKING)
ACT, 1970
-2-
MSA No. 12 of 2020
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT
7, BIKAJI CAMA PLACE
NEW DELHI-110 066
ACTING THROUGH ITS LARGE
CORPORATE BRANCH AT
CENTENARY BUILDING
28, M.G. ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. IDBI BANK LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
AND A BANKING COMPANY
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT
IDBI TOWERS, WTC COMPLEX
CUFFE PARED
COLABA, MUMBAI-400 005.
5. BANK OF BARODA
A BODY CORPORATE UNDER BANKING
COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND UNDERTAKING)
ACT, 1970
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT
BARODA HOUSE P.B. NO.506
MANDAVI, VADODARA-396 006
HAVING BRANCH AT P.O BOX NO.11745
SAMATA BUILDING GENERAL BHOSALE MARG
NARIMAN POINT
MUMBAI-400 021.
6. UNION BANK OF INDIA
(ERSTWHILE CORPORATION BANK)
HAVING CORPORATE OFFICE AT
UNION BANK BHAVAN, NO.239
VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG
NARIMAN POINT
MUMBAI-400 021.
7. UCO BANK
A BODY CORPORATE UNDER BANKING COMPANIES
(ACQUISITION AND UNDERTAKING) ACT, 1970
AND HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT
NO.10, BTM SARANI, KOLKATA-700 001
WEST BENGAL INDIA
-3-
MSA No. 12 of 2020
HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT
1ST FLOOR, 13/22 K.G. ROAD
BENGALURU-560 009.
8. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
A BODY CORPORATE UNDER BANKING
COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND UNDERTAKING)
ACT, 1970
HAVING ITS CENTRAL OFFICE AT 763
ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600 002
HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT
HARI KRIPA, 26A, S.V. ROAD
SANTACRUZ (W)
MUMBAI-400 054.
9. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.
A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
FEDERAL TOWERS, ALIUVA-683 101
KERALA.
HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT
ST. MARKS ROAD, 9, HALEYON COMPLEX
ST. MARKS ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
10. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK
A BODY CORPORATE UNDER BANKING COMPANIES
(ACQUISITION AND UNDERTAKING) ACT, 1970
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 21
RAJENDRA PALACE, NEW DELHI-110 008
HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT
J.K. SOMANI BUILDING
BRITISH HOTEL LANE
MUMBAI-400 023.
11. JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LTD.
A BANKING COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
JAMMU AND KASHMIR COMPANIES ACT, 1977
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
CORPORATE HEADQUARTER
MAULANA AZAD ROAD
SRINAGAR, KASHMIR - 190 001
AND ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT SAIYAD HOUSE
124 S.V. SAVARKAR MARG
-4-
MSA No. 12 of 2020
MAHIM WEST
(MUMBAI)- 400 016.
12. JM FINANCIAL ASSET
RECONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
7TH FLOOR, CNERGY
APPASAHEB MARATHE MARG
PRABHADEVI
MUMBAI-400 002.
(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT
VIDE ORDER DATED 6-8-2025)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR
SRI VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI K.G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR
SRI PATIL VEERENDRA CHANDRASHEKHAR, ADVOCATE FOR
IMPLEADING APPLICANT AS R-2 TO R-12)
***
THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 42 OF THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT,
2002, PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 06-8-2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
UNDER PML ACT, 2002, NEW DELHI AND ETC.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL, HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 14-08-2025 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY,
VENKATESH NAIK T. J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
-5-
MSA No. 12 of 2020
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/Directorate of Enforcement under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, 'PMLA, 2002') to set aside the judgment dated 06.08.2019 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, under the PML Act, 2002, in MP-PMLA- 4917/MUM/2018(U.A), MP-PMLA-4918/MUM/2018 (Stay) and FPA-PMLA-2532/MUM/2018.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the CBI - BS & FC has registered the FIR No. RC BSM 2015 E 0006 dated 29.07.2015 against Sri Vijay Mallya, M/s. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., and unknown officers of IDBI and others for showing undue favour to M/s. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. (for sake of brevity, "M/s. KAL") in the matter of sanction and disbursement of short-term loans (STL) to the tune of Rs.150 Crores, Rs.200 Crores and Rs.750 Crores, respectively, despite weak financials, negative net worth and low credit rating of the borrower Company and despite the fact that the Company, viz., M/s. KAL, being a new client, did not satisfy the norms stipulated in the corporate loan policy of the bank.
-6-MSA No. 12 of 2020
3. The officials of the IDBI Bank Ltd., M/s. KAL and its officials conspired among themselves and got sanctioned and disbursed term loans aggregating to Rs.750 Crores to M/s. KAL without conducting due diligence and M/s. KAL had diverted the funds, thereby putting the IDBI Bank to a wrongful loss of Rs.750 Crores.
4. The FIR revealed that M/s. KAL was a company promoted and incorporated by Sri Vijay Mallya in the year 2003 and was a fully owned subsidiary company of M/s. UB (Holdings) Ltd., Bengaluru. Sri Vijay Mallya was the chairman and CEO of M/s. KAL. Later, a significant portion of the aforementioned funds which was sanctioned and disbursed by IDBI Bank Ltd., were transferred by M/s. KAL to their bank account held with various other banks, which were then further transferred to other accounts of M/s. KAL. The said loan amounts were utilised for the purposes other than the declared ones. Similarly, a major portion of funds transferred were shown to be utilised for foreign remittances towards lease rentals, purchase of aircraft parts, etc., which had gone outside the country and paid into the bank account of M/s. KAL in London.
-7-MSA No. 12 of 2020
5. Hence, the CBI-BS & FC filed an FIR under Section 409 read with 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
6. Based on the scrutiny of the facts of the said case, the appellant, Enforcement Directorate, has registered a case bearing No.ECIR/MBZO/03/2016 dated 25.01.2016, for investigating into the offence of money laundering, if any, in terms of the PMLA, 2002. The offence under Section 120(B) of IPC, 1860 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, falls under scheduled offences covered by paragraphs 1 and 8 of Part-A of Schedule to the PMLA, 2002.
7. During the course of investigation, the appellant, viz., the Enforcement Directorate, on the basis of documents and investigation under PMLA provisionally attached the following properties under the Provisional Attachment Order No.11/2016 dated 11.06.2016 under Section 8(3) of the PMLA, 2002. -8- MSA No. 12 of 2020 Sr. Description of the Area adm. In the name of property No. 01 87/16, Rustomji Flat, 2291 sq. ft. United Breweries Richmond Road, Richmond (Holdings) Ltd Town, Bangalore 02 604, IIB, Wallace 1561 sq. ft. United Breweries Apartments, Nashir (Holdings) Ltd.
Bharucha Marg, Grant Road, Mumbai.
03 Factory Building & land at 4.50 Acres UB Global - a division
Sy. No.254/1, Thuthipattu of United Breweries
Village, Ambur, (Holdings) Ltd.
Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore
District, Tamil Nadu.
04 Land parcels situated in 28.71 Acres M/s.Endeavour
Biligeri Village, Kiragandoor Estates Pvt. Ltd.
Village, Madikeri, Kumboor
Village.
05 UB City, Bengaluru (U.B. 35511.64 sq. United Breweries
Towers Commercial) ft. (Holdings) Ltd.
1st Floor - car parking
IInd Floor - Reception
12th Floor- UBHL office
14th Floor- .......do.......
15th Floor- .......do.......
16th Floor- .......do.......
06 UB City, Bengaluru 309974 sq. ft. M/s.United Breweries
(Canberra Tower) (3rd Floor (Holdings) Ltd.
to 16th Floor except 9th &
part of 15th Floor sold to
M/s. USL)
07 UB City, Bengaluru - UB Mall 76406 sq. ft. M/s.United Breweries
(Canberra & Concorde Retail (Holdings) Ltd.
- commercial area viz.,
Basement to IInd Floor)
08 Amount lying balance in Rs.34.21 P.E. Data Centre
bank A/c Crores Resources Pvt. Ltd.
No.0164351000009300 held (approx)
with Lakshmi Vilas Bank,
Bengaluru (presently in
Fixed Deposit A/c
No.164.113.8959/1)
09 Under construction flats in ......... M/s.United Breweries
Kingfisher Tower, Bengaluru (Holdings) Ltd.
-9-
MSA No. 12 of 2020
to the extent of the
remaining POC 78.
8. Later, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order in O.C.No.612/2016 dated 01.12.2016. Hence, respondent No.1, Rajendra Kumar Jain filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal (PMLA) under Section 26 of the PMLA, 2002, being aggrieved by the order dated 01.12.2016 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in O.C. No.612/2016. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 01.12.2016 passed by the Adjudicating Authority and thereby, quashed the provisional order. The Tribunal, however, by order dated 06.08.2019 clarified at para-34 as under:
"34. However, it is clarified that this Tribunal has decided the appeal pertaining to the order passed on the attachment of flat allegedly purchased by the appellant. The finding shall have no bearing with regard to merit of other proceedings pending against the accused parties including extradition proceedings. It is alleged that the flat in question is one of the assets in which the official liquidator is appointed, therefore, the appellant, respondent No.3, 5 and 8, unless the final order is passed in his favour, shall not create third party interest directly or indirectly."
9. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant, the Enforcement Directorate, has filed this appeal.
- 10 -
MSA No. 12 of 2020
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
11. Sri Madhukar M. Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated 06.08.2019 is unsustainable in law and on facts, hence liable to be set aside. The learned Adjudicating Authority has rightly held that properties provisionally attached under Provisional Attachment Order No.11/2016 are proceeds of crime, attached under the concept of property is equivalent in value under the provision of Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA, 2002, Order of the Tribunal is contrary to the scheme of PMLA, 2002 and Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence, facts, and Provisional Attachment Order, which was passed after due investigation in accordance with Section 5 of PMLA, 2002 by considering all relevant legal aspects, the Tribunal failed to note that appellant had duly explained the factors justifying attachment of the properties as equivalent value of proceeds of crime under Section 8 of the PMLA, 2002.
12. It is also further contended that the money laundering possesses a grave threat to the Nation's financial integrity and sovereignty. The PMLA, 2002 was enacted to prevent money laundering and to attach and confiscate properties derived from
- 11 -
MSA No. 12 of 2020such offences, however, the Tribunal without considering these aspects has passed the impugned order mechanically and a mere agreement to purchase property does not confer ownership unless a registered sale deed is executed. Hence, learned counsel contends the finding of the Tribunal is bad in law.
13. Further, Appellate Tribunal has also erred in relying upon the decision in VannarakkalKallalathil Sreedharan v. Chandramaath Balakrishnan and another, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 291, which pertains to the attachment under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and present attachment is under PMLA, 2002, a special enactment with overriding effect under Section 71, PMLA and pertains to proceeds of crime and not a mere civil attachment. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal.
14. Thus, the appellant, Directorate of Enforcement has framed the following substantial questions of law on facts, which reads as under:
I. Is not the Appellant Tribunal refusing to confirm the Provisional Attachment Order is not against Section 24 of the PMLA, 2002?
- 12 -MSA No. 12 of 2020
II. Is not the Appellate Tribunal failing to examine the proceeds of crime defined under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act?
III. Is not the Appellate Tribunal failing to examine the Money laundering defined under Section 2(1)(p) r/w offence of Money Laundering under Section 3 of the Act?
IV. Is not the Appellate Tribunal failing to examine the presumption as to records or property in certain cases defined under Section 22 of the Act?
V. Is not the Appellate Tribunal failing to examine the presumption in inter connected activities under Section 23 of the Act?
VI. Whether Appellate Tribunal was right in reversing the confirmation order passed by the Adjudicating Authority without giving any categorical finding regarding the existence of the proceeds of crime?
VII. Whether the Appellate Tribunal decided the appeal contrary to the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and decided the appeal? VIII. Whether the Appellate Tribunal failed to take note of the statements of various persons including Mr. Jaggaiah and Mr. Venkaiah while passing the impugned order? IX. Whether the Appellate Tribunal by ordering release of property exceeded its jurisdiction?
15. Per Contra, Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri Vivek Holla, on behalf of respondent No.1, vehemently contended that, on 26.04.2010, a Joint Development agreement was entered into between M/s. United
- 13 -
MSA No. 12 of 2020Breweries (holdings) Ltd. ("UBHL") and M/s. Prestige Estate Projects Pvt. Ltd. ("Prestige"), whereby, inter alia it was argued upon between the parties to distribute the shares in the proportion of 55% and 45% respectively. The agreement entered into between M/s. UBHL and M/s. Prestige, whereby, inter alia the apartments falling into the respective shares of each party, were identified and earmarked on 04.11.2010. Respondent No.1 paid the initial booking amount of Rs.1 Crore on 05.01.2011 and was allotted Apartment No.7A (8321 sq.ft). On 22.09.2011, respondent No.1 paid a further sum of Rs.17,38,79,000/- through banker cheque/DD No.793499 as a second instalment. On the same day, respondent No.1 paid third instalment of a sum of Rs.1 Crore through banker cheque/DD No.793500. Thus, respondent No.1 paid in all Rs.18,38,79,000/- as on 22.09.2011, and thus, the UBHL issued acknowledgment to that effect. In this regard, the UBHL executed an Agreement to Sell in favour of respondent No.1 on 21.05.2012, wherein, the UBHL agreed to sell flat No.7A in favour of respondent No.1. Therefore, the consideration passed under the Agreement to Sell is not proceeds of crime and value thereof. Thus, respondent No.1 is a bona fide purchaser and the UBHL is a corporate guarantor. Therefore, the appellant/ED
- 14 -
MSA No. 12 of 2020could attach the sale proceeds in the hands of vendor of respondent No.1 and not the properties standing in the name of genuine/legitimate/bona fide purchaser of the flat, without knowledge. Thus, learned Senior counsel prayed to dismiss the appeal.
16. Sri K. G. Krishnamurthy, learned Senior counsel appearing for impleading applicants/respondent Nos.2 to 12 vehemently contended that, the Bank lends loan to the borrowers and the public money is involved in this case, and the Tribunal has set aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority and thus, the appellant may proceed to attach the properties, which are available for attachment. The Banks advanced various finance facility to M/s. KAL for which, Sri Vijay Mallya was a personal guarantor and the UBHL is a Corporate Guarantor. He contends that once the winding-up proceeding of the company is commenced under Sections 441 and 446 of the Companies Act, the Company Court can deal with the matter and as such, the Agreement to Sell is not a transfer of title under the provisions of Transfer of Properties Act, 1882, as the transactions is barred under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act.
- 15 -
MSA No. 12 of 2020ANALYSIS & FINDING:
17. This Court has heard the parties at length and has carefully examined the pleadings, the impugned order, and the submissions made by both the parties.
18. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the present appeal is filed by the appellant on 16.10.2019, and the impugned order is passed on 06.08.2019.
19. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, being a special legislation with significant economic implications, occupies a distinct place in the statutory framework of financial regulations and jurisprudence. Recognising the evolving nature of economic offences and the growing threat of money laundering to the integrity of national and international financial systems, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, has been extensively amended over time, almost a dozen times, to address exigencies, close legal loopholes, and reinforce its enforcement architecture. The list of amendments, which underscores the evolving scope and rigor of the statute, includes:
(a). The Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2005 (20 of 2005).
(b). The Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2009 (21 of 2009).
- 16 -
MSA No. 12 of 2020
(c). The Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2012 (2 of 2013).
(d). The Finance Act, 2015 (20 of 2015).
(e). The Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (22 of 2015).
(f). The Finance Act, 2016 (28 of 2016).
(g). The Finance Act, 2018 (13 of 2018).
(h). The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (16 of 2018).
(i). The Finance Act, 2019 (7 of 2019).
(j). The Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019 (14 of 2019).
20. It is thus clear that although the Prevention of Money Laundering Act empowers the Directorate of Enforcement to seize or freeze property suspected to be involved in money laundering, such powers are embedded within a stringent procedural framework aimed at ensuring accountability, transparency, and protection of individual rights. The exercise of such coercive powers must strictly conform to the statutory checks and balances provided within PMLA.
21. We reiterate that, Section 20(1) of PMLA would necessarily get attracted, at the very first instance, in respect of any action taken for the retention of property or the continuance of freezing of any property. Section 20(1) of PMLA mandates that
- 17 -
MSA No. 12 of 2020a separate and independent opinion must be formed by an officer authorised by the Director, who may not necessarily be the same officer as authorised under Section 17(1) of PMLA, stating reasons justifying such retention. After forming an independent reason to believe, which would naturally have to form the basis for the order for retention, the order would be required to be forwarded along with the material in his possession to the Adjudicating Authority, without delay, under Section 20(2) of PMLA. Such an order would draw sustenance from the reason to believe and would necessarily have to form a part of the order, as any order without the appurtenant reasoning would not be an order at all. This is all the more relevant since the said order effectively seeks to prolong the curtailment of the enjoyment of valuable rights of a party, who has suffered any such seizure or freezing of property.
22. We are also of the opinion that the architecture of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is designed to strike a delicate balance between empowering enforcement agencies and protecting individual rights. The processes of search, seizure, freezing, attachment, and retention are embedded with procedural safeguards to ensure that state action is not only lawful, but also proportionate and subject to independent
- 18 -
MSA No. 12 of 2020scrutiny. Judicial and quasi-judicial oversight is envisaged at every stage to prevent the arbitrary exercise of power and to uphold constitutional values. The integrity of this framework rests on the rigorous application of the procedural mandates enshrined in the statute.
23. A cardinal principle of statutory interpretation, as reiterated by the Courts, time and again, is that when a statute prescribes a method to do a particular thing, it must be done in that manner alone and not otherwise. Therefore, if Section 20 of PMLA stipulates a defined mechanism for the retention of seized property or records, it is imperative that such procedure is strictly followed.
24. This legal position was reaffirmed by a Three-Judges Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of OPTO Circuit (India) Ltd. v. Axis Bank and Others, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 707, wherein the Court stressed that procedural compliance under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is not optional, especially when individual rights are at stake. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted herein below:
"8. A perusal of the above provision would indicate that the
- 19 -MSA No. 12 of 2020
prerequisite is that the Director or such other authorised officer in order to exercise the power under Section 17 of the PMLA, should on the basis of information in his possession, have reason to believe that such person has committed acts relating to money- laundering and there is need to seize any record or property found in the search. Such belief of the officer should be recorded in writing. Sub-section (1-A) to Section 17 of the PMLA provides that the officer authorised under sub-section (1) may make an order to freeze such record or property where it is not practicable to seize such record or property. Sub-section (2) provides that after search and seizure or upon issuance of a freezing order the authorised officer shall forward a copy of the reasons recorded along with material in his possession to the adjudicating authority in a sealed envelope. Sub-section (4) provides that the authority seizing or freezing any record or property under sub-
section (1) or (1-A) shall within a period of thirty days from such seizure or freezing, as the case may be, file an application before the adjudicating authority requesting for retention of such record or properties seized.
9. For the purpose of clarity, it is emphasised that the freezing of the account will also require the same procedure since a bank account having alleged "proceeds of crime"
would fall both under the ambit "property" and "records".
In that regard, it would be appropriate to take note of Sections 2(1)(v) and 2(1)(w) of the PMLA which defines "property" and "records". The same read as follows:
"2.(1)(v) "property" means any property or assets of every description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located;
2.(1)(w) "records" include the records maintained in the form of books or stored in a computer or such other form as may be prescribed;"
10. The scheme of the PMLA is well intended. While it seeks to achieve the object of preventing money-laundering and bring to book the offenders, it also safeguards the rights of the persons who would be proceeded against under the Act by ensuring fairness in procedure. Hence a procedure, including timeline is provided so as to ensure that power is exercised for the purpose to which the officer is vested with such power and the adjudicating authority is also kept in the loop. In the instant case, the procedure contemplated under Section 17 of the PMLA to which reference is made above has not been followed by the officer authorised. Except issuing the impugned Communication dated 15-5-2020 to
- 20 -
MSA No. 12 of 2020AML Officer to seek freezing, no other procedure contemplated in law is followed. In fact, the impugned communication does not even refer to the belief of the authorised officer even if the same was recorded separately. It only states that the officer is investigating the case and seeks for relevant documents, but in the tabular column abruptly states that the accounts have to be "debit freezed/stop operations". It certainly is not the requirement that the communication addressed to the Bank itself should contain all the details. But what is necessary is an order in the file recording the belief as provided under Section 17(1) of the PMLA before the communication is issued and thereafter the requirement of Section 17(2) of the PMLA after the freezing is made is complied with. There is no other material placed before the Court to indicate compliance with Section 17 of the PMLA, more particularly recording the belief of commission of the act of money- laundering and placing it before the adjudicating authority or for filing application after securing the freezing of the account to be made. In that view, the freezing or the continuation thereof is without due compliance with the legal requirement and, therefore, not sustainable. xxx xxx xxx
14. This Court has time and again emphasised that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner alone and in no other manner. Among others, in a matter relating to the presentation of an election petition, as per the procedure prescribed under the Patna High Court Rules, this Court had an occasion to consider the Rules to find out as to what would be a valid presentation of an election petition in Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad and Others (1999) 8 SCC 266] and in the course of consideration observed as hereunder : (SCC p. 273, para 17).
"17.......It is a well-settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner."
Therefore, if the salutary principle is kept in perspective, in the instant case, though the Appellate Tribunal is vested with sufficient power; such power is circumscribed by a procedure laid down under the statute. As such, the power is to be exercised in that manner alone, failing which, it would fall foul of the requirements of complying with due process under law.
- 21 -
MSA No. 12 of 2020
25. In the instant appeal, two questions are primarily involved for decision namely, (1) Whether the respondent No.1 could be said to be the owner of Flat No.7A (under construction) in Kingfisher Towers on the basis of unregistered agreement to sell dated 21.05.2012?
(2) Whether Flat No.7A could be
attached as 'proceeds of crime' under
the concept of 'property' which is
equivalent in value under the provisions of Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA, 2002?
26. Before adverting to the aforesaid questions, it would be appropriate to take note of the relevant provisions of PMLA, 2002:-
Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA, 2002:
"(u) "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property; [or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country] [or abroad];"
- 22 -
MSA No. 12 of 2020Section 5 of PMLA, 2002:
5. Attachment of property involved in money-
laundering.--[(1)Where the Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by the Director for the purposes of this Section, has reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing), on the basis of material in his possession, that--
(a) any person is in possession of any proceeds of crime; and
(b) such proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to confiscation of such proceeds of crime under this Chapter, he may, by order in writing, provisionally attach such property for a period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days from the date of the order, in such manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that no such order of attachment shall be made unless, in relation to the scheduled offence, a report has been forwarded to a Magistrate under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or a complaint has been filed by a person authorised to investigate the offence mentioned in that Schedule, before a Magistrate or court for taking cognizance of the scheduled offence, as the case may be, or a similar report or complaint has been made or filed under the corresponding law of any other country:
Provided further that, notwithstanding anything contained in [first proviso], any property of any person may be attached under this section if the Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by him for the purposes of this section has reason to believe (the reasons for such belief to be recorded in writing), on the basis of material in his possession, that if such property involved in money-laundering is not attached immediately under this Chapter, the non-attachment of the property is likely to frustrate any proceeding under this Act.] [Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of one hundred and eighty days, the period during which the proceedings under this section is stayed by the High Court, shall be excluded and a further period not exceeding thirty days from the date of order of vacation of such stay order shall be counted.];
(2) The Director, or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director, shall, immediately after attachment under sub-section (1), forward a copy of the order, along with the material in his possession, referred to in that sub-section, to the Adjudicating Authority, in a sealed envelope, in the
- 23 -MSA No. 12 of 2020
manner as may be prescribed and such Adjudicating Authority shall keep such order and material for such period as may be prescribed.
(3) Every order of attachment made under sub-section (1) shall cease to have effect after the expiry of the period specified in that sub-section or on the date of an order made under [sub-section (3)] of section 8, whichever is earlier. (4) Nothing in this section shall prevent the person interested in the enjoyment of the immovable property attached under sub-section (1) from such enjoyment.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this sub-section, "person interested", in relation to any immovable property, includes all persons claiming or entitled to claim any interest in the property.
(5) The Director or any other officer who provisionally attaches any property under sub-section (1) shall, within a period of thirty days from such attachment, file a complaint stating the facts of such attachment before the Adjudicating Authority."
27. As per the material available on record, the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) between UBHL, the owner of the property, 26, Vittal Mallya Road, Bengaluru, ('the Schedule Property') with Prestige is dated 26.04.2010 to construct 'Kingfisher Towers' consisting of the residential flats whereunder, the Prestige Estates undertook to develop the construction of luxurious residential apartments on the Scheduled Property and handover 55% of the total saleable super built-up area to the UBHL and appropriate unto itself 45% of the super built-up area. It is very strange to note that the respondent No.1 alleges that he had paid almost entire sale
- 24 -
MSA No. 12 of 2020consideration to the UBHL in respect of the Schedule Property before even the construction commenced. According to the respondent No.1, he had paid Rs.1 crore on 05.01.2011 and Rs.17,38,79,000/- on 22.09.2011 and finally, Rs.1 crore on 22.09.2011.
28. One International Aero Engines AG filed the Company Petition No.57/2012 on 26.03.2012 seeking winding up of the KAL and its holding company, the UBHL.
29. Consortium banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI), on the request of the KAL, entered into a Master Debt Recast Agreement (MDRA) dated 21.12.2010 and in pursuance thereto, various related agreements were entered into on the same day between the consortium banks and the UBHL including the Personal Guarantee by Dr. Vijay Mallya.
30. The consortium banks filed OA Nos.766/2013 and 1220/2015 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru (DRT). The consortium banks also filed Company Petition No.162/2013 seeking winding up of the UBHL. This Company Petition was tagged with the pending Company Petition No.57/2012 besides several other company petitions seeking winding up of the UBHL.
- 25 -
MSA No. 12 of 2020
31. The DRT allowed the OA No.766/2013 vide order dated 19.01.2017 and directed the UBHL, its subsidiaries and sister companies to pay a sum of Rs.6,203 crores along with interest @11.50% p.a. from the date of the application till the date of realisation and OA No.1220/2015 was allowed vide order dated 30.06.2018 and directed the UBHL and KAL to pay a sum of Rs.644.92 crores along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the application till the date of realisation.
32. The total decretal amount as on 16.05.2024 came to Rs.17,471.46 crores. Out of the said amount, the banks were temporarily holding Rs.10,814.54 crores and the balance sum due was Rs.6,656.92 crores.
33. The consortium of banks also invoked the Corporate Guarantee dated 21.12.2010 executed by the UBHL to secure the obligations of the KAL. The Company Petitions for winding up of the UBHL, the corporate guarantor to the loan advanced to the KAL, was allowed vide order dated 07.02.2017. The said order got confirmed up to the Supreme Court. It appears that the respondent No.1 entered into an Agreement to Sell for purchase of Flat No.7A (8321 sq.ft) along with a proportionate undivided area jointly developed by M/s. UBHL and
- 26 -
MSA No. 12 of 2020M/s.Prestige Estate. The advance sale consideration of Rs.18,38,79,000/- was said to be paid by the respondent No.1 on 22.09.2011. Thus, even if the respondent No.1 entered into an unregistered Agreement to Sell dated 21.05.2012 in respect of the property in question, no title was passed on to the respondent No.1 under the agreement. A mere Agreement to Sell, that too unregistered in respect of the immovable property does not pass title or ownership to the agreement holder. It only creates a right to seek specific performance of the contract, while the title remains with the seller until a registered sale deed is executed and registered.
34. The contention of the respondent No.1 that a Letter of Allotment dated 12.04.2011 was issued by the UBHL in his favour in respect of the Flat bearing No.7A in Kingfisher Towers admeasuring 8,321 square feet of super built-up area for a total consideration of Rs.20,80,25,000/- and he paid the almost entire consideration even before execution of the unregistered agreement to sell dated 21.05.2012 is unbelievable.
35. We find it little strange that almost entire sale consideration was paid by the respondent No.1 even before entering into the alleged agreement to sell dated 21.05.2012.
- 27 -
MSA No. 12 of 2020It may also be noted that the agreement to sell dated 21.05.2012 was after filing of the Company Petition No.57/2012 on 26.03.2012 by the International Aero Engines AG and this company petition, along with other company petitions, came to be allowed vide judgment and order dated 07.02.2017.
36. Payment of the alleged almost entire consideration even before the unregistered agreement to sell being executed in favour of the respondent No.1 by the UBHL in respect of Flat No.7A of Kingfisher Towers would cause a huge shadow of doubt of bona fides and genuineness of these transactions. Even otherwise, the Company Petition No.57/2012 which was filed on 26.03.2012 was widely published and advertised.
37. It is relevant to note that despite the Company Petition No.57/2012 having been filed on 26.03.2012, the respondent No.1 had entered into the alleged unregistered agreement to sell dated 21.05.2012 without any leave from the Company Court. Therefore, even otherwise the said Agreement to Sell dated 21.05.2012 would be a void transaction. It appears that there was an intent by the respondent No.1 to assist the accused in circumventing the pending legal actions by
- 28 -
MSA No. 12 of 2020facilitating the transactions with the UBHL, post filing of the winding up petition.
38. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short 'the TP Act') provides that the contract of sale itself does not create any interest in or charge on the property for which the contract of sale has been entered into. It is mere an agreement for sale of the property which shall take place on the terms settled between the parties. Section 54 of the TP Act reads as under:
"54. "Sale" defined.- "Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised.
Sale how made.- Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument.
In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property.
Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property.
- 29 -MSA No. 12 of 2020
Contract for sale.-A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties.
It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property."
39. The transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by way of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered) as required by law. Without registration of the sale deed, no right, title, interest in the immovable property can be transferred. A contract of sale (Agreement to Sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance would fall short of the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the TP Act.
40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SURAJ LAMP AND INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER, (2012) 1 SCC 656 has held in paragraphs 18 and 19 as under:
"18. It is thus clear that a transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred.
- 30 -
MSA No. 12 of 2020
19. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of sections 54 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act). According to the Transfer of Property Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act enacts that sale of immovable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject-matter."
41. The Bombay High Court in the case of CREST HOTEL LTD and another vs ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF STAMPS and another, (AIR 1994 BOM 228) has held that a contract for sale of immovable property does not by itself create any interest in or charge on such property. It is an Agreement to Sell, a document creating a right to obtain any other document of sale on fulfillment of terms and conditions specified therein. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:
"It is well settled that a contract for sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or
- 31 -MSA No. 12 of 2020
charge on such property. It is thus clear that an agreement for sale is merely a document creating a right to obtain another document of sale on fulfillment of terms and conditions specified therein. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. On the strength of such an agreement a buyer does not become the owner of the property. The ownership remains with the seller. It will get transferred to the buyer only on execution of the sale deed by the seller. What the buyer gets from an agreement for sale is only a right to obtain a sale deed executed in his favour. If the seller refused to comply, the buyer is entitled to enforce that obligation by filing a suit for specific performance."
42. The Provisional Attachment Order No.11/2016 and its confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 01.12.2016 in OC No.612/2016 were based on the evidence that the UBHL, controlled directly or indirectly by Dr.Vijay Mallya, held the properties linked to the proceeds of the crime. The subject property, Flat No.7A, remained vested with the UBHL as no registered sale deed took place before the date of passing of the Provisional Attachment Order and Final Attachment Order.
43. The consortium of banks led by the SBI had filed restoration application dated 08.01.2019 under Section 8(7) and second proviso to Section 8 of the PMLA, 2002 in PMLA
- 32 -
MSA No. 12 of 2020Special Case No.7/2017 to secure temporary restoration of the properties till final adjudication of the PMLA proceedings. The official liquidator of the UBHL had filed his reply dated 04.03.2019 to the aforementioned application. The official liquidator had opposed the restoration of the properties in favour of the consortium of banks led by the SBI and prayed for restoration of the attached properties in favour of the official liquidator on the ground that he was the sole custodian of the interests of the secured and unsecured creditors of the UBHL.
44. The Special Judge for CBI, Greater Bombay at Mumbai, has considered the provisions of PMLA, 2002 and held that the restoration of attached assets was not a matter of right for the claimant, but the claimant had to undergo various hurdles and establish his bona fides before the Court. The Special Court for PMLA specifically held that the consortium of banks led by the SBI, being the public sector banks dealing with the public money, passed the stringent test enumerated under Section 8 of PMLA, 2002 and therefore, they are entitled for restoration of the assets in their favour. The Special Court for PMLA rejected the prayer of the official liquidator to restore the attached properties and advised the official liquidator to approach the Recovery Officer, DRT for further proceedings. The restoration
- 33 -
MSA No. 12 of 2020application of the consortium of banks was allowed vide order dated 01.06.2021. The properties including the property in question in the present appeal were ordered to be restored to the consortium of banks through the Recovery Officer, DRT. The Special Court directed the Recovery Officer and the consortium of banks to furnish bonds of undertaking as per Rule 3A(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Restoration of Property) Rules, 2016 (for short 'the said Rules'). The Recovery Officer was permitted to proceed in accordance with law subject to compliance of the order dated 07.02.2017 passed by this Court in Company Petition No.57/2012.
45. The consortium of banks led by the SBI had executed the bond of undertaking dated 03.06.2021 under Rule 3A(2) of the said Rules before the Special Judge in PMLA Special Case No.7/2017. The consortium banks had undertaken to return the assets and the properties restored to them by the Enforcement Directorate for their equivalent amount immediately within 24 hours of the demand made by the Court of Special Judge for CBI, Greater Bombay at Mumbai. During the pendency of the restoration application before the PMLA Court and also during the pendency of the present appeal, the respondent No.1 filed Company Application No.153/2020 in Company Petition
- 34 -
MSA No. 12 of 2020No.162/2013 seeking direction to the official liquidator to execute and register the sale deed in respect of Flat No.7A by suppressing the aforesaid proceedings in PMLA Special Case No.7/2017. The official liquidator, without disclosing the same, submitted a memo dated 18.12.2020 stating that the official liquidator did not have objection for execution of the sale deed. In pursuance of the order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, the sale deed came to be executed on 05.02.2021.
46. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the respondent No.1 did not have any title over Flat No.7A, Kingfisher Towers. The property was of the UBHL and not of the respondent No.1. We are also of the view that the transactions between the respondent No.1 and the UBHL were not bona fide.
47. The Enforcement Directorate was well within the power to attach the aforesaid property in possession of the UBHL being equivalent to the value of the proceeds of crime as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA, 2002. We are also of the considered view that no objection of the official liquidator for registration of the sale deed despite the pendency of the
- 35 -
MSA No. 12 of 2020proceedings for restoration of the properties in favour of the consortium of banks and the pendency of this appeal, was not a bona fide act. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the PMLA Tribunal and allow the appeal.
In view of disposal of the appeal, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AM/MN/BKV