Smt. Namita Samantara vs Directorate Of Enforcement (Pmla)
2025 Latest Caselaw 11150 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Namita Samantara vs Directorate Of Enforcement (Pmla) on 3 December, 2025

                                              -1-
                                                         MSA No. 156 of 2024




                   Reserved on   : 14.11.2025
                   Pronounced on : 03.12.2025

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

                                           PRESENT

                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

                                             AND

                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

                   MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No. 156 OF 2024 (PMLA)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SMT. NAMITA SAMANTARA,
                         W/O NIHAR RANJAN SAMANTARA,
                         AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
                         RESIDING AT No.23,
                         BASUDEVA NIWAS, 13TH CROSS,
                         KAGGADASAPURA, CVR NAGAR,
                         BANGALORE-560093.
                                                                ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI MOHAMMED MUJASSIM, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU          AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF           1.    DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT (PMLA),
KARNATAKA
                         GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
                         BENGALURU ZONAL OFFICE,
                         3RD FLOOR, 'B' BLOCK,
                         BMTC SHANTINAGAR, TTMC K.H. ROAD,
                         SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU 560027,
                         THROUGH THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR.

                   2.    THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY,
                         UNDER THE PREVENTION OF MONEY
                         LAUNDERING ACT, 2002,
                           -2-
                                      MSA No. 156 of 2024



     ROOM No.26, 4TH FLOOR,
     JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING,
     PARLIAMENT STREET,
     NEW DELHI - 110 001
     REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR /
     ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.

3.   THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
     M/S IGNIS TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,
     No.16, APARTMENT No.106,
     7TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS,
     BANANSHANKARI 3RD STAGE,
     BANGALORE - 560085.

4.   MR. NIHAR RANJAN SAMANTARA,
     23, BASUDEV NIWAS,
     13TH CROSS, KAGGADASAPURA,
     CVR NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560093.

5.   THE CHIEF MANAGER,
     UNITED BANK OF INDIA,
     ELECTRONIC CITY BRANCH,
     BANGALORE - 560100.

6.   SRI.M.RAMOJI,
     RECOVERY OFFICER-II,
     DEBT RECOVER TRIBUNAL -KARNATAKA,
     DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES,
     4, JEEVAN MANGAL BUILDING,
     2ND FLOOR, RESIDENCY ROAD,
     BANGALORE -560001.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 42 OF THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.05.2024 PASSED IN APPEAL No.FPA-PMLA- 1835/BNG/2017 ON THE FILE OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (SAFEMA)., MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 1.06.2017 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.1 IN ORIGINAL COMPLIANT (OC)No.682/2017 WHEREIN ATTACHMENT OF THE THREE PROPERTIES PERTAINING TO THE APPELLANT VIDE PAO

No.20/2017 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.1 DATED 03.01.2017.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, K.V. ARAVIND, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)

Heard Sri. Mohammed Mujassim, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri. Madhukar Deshpande, learned counsel for

the respondent No.1.

2. This appeal is filed under Section 42 of the

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 20021, by the appellant

before the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA in FPA-PMLA-

1835/BNG/2017, assailing the Final Order dated 07.05.2024.

3. The brief facts are that an FIR was registered on

28.12.2012 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Bank

Securities & Frauds Cell (BSFC), Bengaluru, on the basis of a

complaint dated 21.12.2012 lodged by the Chief Regional

Manager, United Bank of India, Regional Office, Bengaluru. The

FIR was registered against Shri Nihar Ranjan Samantara and

PMLA 2002

Shri Prahalad Agiwal, Directors of M/s. IGNIS Technology

Solutions Pvt. Ltd.2, and also against Shri V. Suryanarayana,

the then Chief Manager, United Bank of India, Electronic City

Branch, Bengaluru, and others, for the offences punishable

under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and

471 IPC, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 19883.

3.1 Upon completion of investigation, the CBI filed a

charge sheet on 05.11.2014. Based on the said FIR and charge

sheet, ECIR/BGZO/02/2015 came to be registered on

12.01.2015 by the Enforcement Directorate, Bengaluru. During

the course of investigation, statements of the accused persons

and other witnesses were recorded, wherein it emerged that

Shri Nihar Ranjan Samantara became a Director of the

Company on 30.09.2008 and, as on 15.04.2008, he was

holding 24.67% of the shares of the Company along with his

relatives and friends.

3.2 It was alleged that the accused persons had

committed fraud upon the complainant-Bank to the tune of

Rs.33,42,10,330/- by submitting forged documents in favour of

2 accused-Company 3 the Act 1988

the accused-Company. Hence, it was considered necessary to

attach the properties of the appellant along with the properties

of the accused-Company. Accordingly, Provisional Attachment

Order No.20/2017 dated 03.01.2017 was issued. Investigation

revealed that part of loan amount transferred to the account of

the appellant has been used to repay the loan against the

properties in question.

3.3 Thereafter, Original Complaint No. 682/2017 was

filed before the Adjudicating Authority seeking confirmation of

the provisional attachment. The Adjudicating Authority, by

order dated 01.06.2017, confirmed the attachment. Aggrieved

by the said order of confirmation, the appellant preferred an

appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority,

by order dated 07.05.2024, dismissed the appeal and affirmed

the order of the Adjudicating Authority. The present appeal has

been filed assailing the said order.

4. Sri Mohammed Mujassin, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant, submits that under the impugned order, three

properties belonging to the appellant have been attached. It is

contended that these properties were purchased much prior to

the loan transaction, namely in the years 2000 and 2010

respectively, whereas the loan was sanctioned only on

08.04.2010. Learned counsel submits that no part of the loan

amount was utilised towards the purchase of these properties.

In the absence of any utilisation of the alleged loan proceeds

for purchasing the said properties, it is contended that the

properties cannot be subjected to proceedings under the PMLA

2002.

4.1 Learned counsel further submits that, at the

instance of the appellant's husband, who is a Director of the

accused-Company, the appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs.1.2

crores from M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance

Company by mortgaging her property at Sl.No.1. It is

submitted that the amount was thereafter transferred to the

bank account of the Company as a loan, and the said loan

remains outstanding.

4.2 Learned counsel further submits that the appellant

is a shareholder of the Company and had entered into an

agreement with Shri G. Dhananjay Reddy for the sale of her

shares for a total consideration of Rs.2,78,00,000/-. As part

consideration, she received a sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/-, which

was utilised to repay the loan taken against the property at

Sl.No.1. It is submitted that, since the balance consideration

was not paid, the transfer of shares has not been completed.

4.3 Learned counsel contends that the factum of the

proposed sale of shares is evidenced by the Board Resolution,

and the appellant has affixed her signature on the requisite

documents and share certificates for transfer of shares in

favour of Shri G. Dhananjay Reddy. It is submitted that

delivery of share certificates is pending, awaiting payment of

the balance consideration.

4.4 Learned counsel further submits that the amount

received from Shri G. Dhananjay Reddy represents part

consideration towards sale of shares, and merely because the

said amount originated from a loan obtained by Shri G.

Dhananjay Reddy and was utilised by the appellant for

repayment of her loan, the properties in question cannot be

treated as 'proceeds of crime' so as to warrant an order of

attachment.

4.5 It is additionally submitted that the appellant was

not afforded sufficient opportunity to produce material to

establish the share transaction. On these grounds, learned

counsel prays for setting aside the order of attachment.

5. Sri Madhukar Deshpande, learned counsel

appearing for respondent No.1, submits that an order of

attachment is a tentative measure intended to secure

properties alleged to have been acquired from the proceeds of

crime, pending investigation. It is further submitted that such

attachment does not prevent any person interested from

enjoying the immovable property under attachment.

5.1 Learned counsel contends that, on the basis of the

facts and evidence on record, it has been established that the

amount paid by Shri G. Dhananjay Reddy originated from the

loan amount allegedly availed through fraudulent means, and

the said amount received by the appellant was utilised to repay

the loan secured against the properties. Hence, the properties

under attachment are directly or indirectly connected with the

utilisation of the proceeds of crime.

5.2 It is further submitted that the appellant had

sufficient opportunity before both the Adjudicating Authority

and the Appellate Authority to establish her case regarding the

loan and share transaction, which she failed to do. In view of

the above, learned counsel prays that the appeal be dismissed.

6. We have considered the submissions of learned

counsel for the parties.

7. It is evident that the appellant purchased the

property at Sl.No.1 under a registered sale deed dated

19.10.2000. The consideration appears to have been paid from

her own account. The properties at Sl.Nos.2 and 3 were

purchased pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding

dated 05.09.2007; possession was taken on 21.01.2009, and

the sale deed was executed on 22.12.2010. The alleged loan

transaction is dated 08.04.2010. At first blush, it appears that

the properties in question were acquired much prior to the

alleged loan transaction.

7.1 On deeper scrutiny of transactions, it is evident

from the record that Shri G. Dhananjay Reddy, Director of the

accused-Company, paid a sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/-, out of the

loan amount released to the said Company, in favour of the

appellant, and the appellant utilised the said amount to repay

her existing loan. The mortgage loan of Rs.1.2 crores obtained

from M/s. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company,

Bengaluru, by the appellant, is still outstanding.

- 10 -

7.2 The payment of Rs.1.2 crores by Shri G. Dhananjay

Reddy is contended to be part consideration for the transfer of

shares held by the appellant in the accused-Company. Though

it is contended that the proposed transfer of shares is recorded

in the Board Resolution of the Company and that the share

certificates have been signed for transfer, the appellant has

admitted in her statement dated 05.03.2015 that the share

certificates were not delivered to Shri G. Dhananjay Reddy as

the balance consideration had not been paid. The total agreed

consideration is stated to be Rs.2,78,00,000/-, of which Rs.1.2

crores is said to have been paid as advance, while the

remaining amount remains outstanding.

7.3 It is further admitted in the said statement that the

outstanding loan secured against the properties was repaid to

the extent of Rs.1.11 crores by utilising a portion of the Rs.1.2

crores received from Shri G. Dhananjay Reddy.

8. The appellant had sufficient opportunity before both

the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority to

substantiate the alleged share transaction. However, no such

material was placed before either forum. No material is

demonstrated before this Court to examine the contentions

- 11 -