Bombay High Court
Union Of India Through The ... vs M/S Tata Capital Financial ... on 12 September, 2018
Bench: K.K. Tated
3.1269.17-FA.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.1269/2017
Union of India
Through the Assistant Director ... Appellant
V/s.
M/s. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. ... Respondent
Mr. A. J. Rana, Senior Advocate i/b. D. P. Singh for the Appellant
Ms. Benedicta Lobo i/b. Kataria and Associate for the Respondent
CORAM: K.K. TATED &
S. K. SHINDE, JJ.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 12, 2018
P.C. :
1 Heard. After arguing for some time, both the parties filed
minutes of order dated 12.09.2018. Same are taken on record and
marked "X" for identification, which read thus:
MINUTES OF ORDER
1. First Appeal No. 1269 of 2017 filed by the Appellant has
been admitted by Order dated 27.08.2018.
2. The Appeal was filed against Order dated 17.04.2017
passed by the Appellate Tribunal, the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act at New Delhi.
3. The Ld. Tribunal by impugned Order has set aside the
adjudication Order dated 12.01.2016 as well as the provisional
Basavraj
Gurappa
Patil Basavraj G. Patil 1/3
Digitally signed by
Basavraj Gurappa
Patil
Date: 2018.09.12
17:42:30 +0530
3.1269.17-FA.doc
attachment Order dated 25.03.2015. By the Attachment Order
the Competent Authority as well as the Adjudicating Authority
had attached 8844.08 acres of land in Andhra Pradesh in exercise
of power under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
( hereinafter referred as to said Act)
4. By the impugned Order, Ld. Tribunal has set aside the
attachment Order on the ground that the authority under the
said Act had failed to obtain permission of this Hon'ble Court,
which had appointed Court Receiver by Order dated 23.07.2014
in Arbitration Petition No. 1126 of 2014 filed by the Respondent
against Indu Project Ltd. and others.
5. The Court Receiver had taken symbolic possession of
204.41 acres of land which were mortgaged to the Respondent
by the said Indu Project Ltd. who were the Respondent in the
said Arbitration Petition.
6. The said 204.41 acres of land formed part of said 8844.01
acres of land which were attached.
7. By Order dated 05.04.2018 passed by this Hon'ble Court in
the said Arbitration Petition No. 1126 of 2014 the Respondents
in the present Appeal were allowed to withdraw the said
Arbitration Petition and Court Receiver was discharged.
8. In the impugned Order, the Tribunal itself in paragraph 48
has observed that if the authorities under the said Act wished to
attach the property in question they were at liberty to approach
this Hon'ble Court seeking permission of this Hon'ble Court to
attach the property.
Basavraj G. Patil 2/3
3.1269.17-FA.doc
9. In view of the fact that the Arbitration Petition itself has
been withdrawn and Court Receiver has been discharged, there is
no impediment for attaching the property and authorities under
the said Act are not required to obtain any permission from this
Hon'ble Court.
10. The Appellants have already filed an Affidavit to the effect
that the Appellant Department will not initiate any action against
the Respondent under the said Act in respect of 204.41 acres of
land which was involved in the said Arbitration Petition and the
present Appeal.
11. In the premises aforesaid the impugned Order dated
17.04.2017 be set aside."
2 The First Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the minutes of
order. No order as to costs.
(S. K. SHINDE, J.) (K. K. TATED, J.)
Basavraj G. Patil 3/3
