HC Permits Petitioner to Replace Provisionally Attached Land With Equivalent Bank Guarantee Citing Legal Precedents
- Blog|News|FEMA & Banking|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 2 July, 2024
Case Details: Revati Cements (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India - [2024] 164 taxmann.com 13 (HC-Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Dr Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.
- Vijay Agarwal, Hardik Sharma, Pankush Goyal, Kshitiz Garg, Ms Barkha & Nagesh Behl, Advs. for the Petitioner.
- Kirtiman Singh, Waize Ali Noor, Varun Pratap Singh & P.V. Yogeswaram, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered an ECIR under sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, against the accused cement companies, including the petitioner company.
An investigation was conducted, and the total proceeds of the crime of Rs.49 crores were quantified. The Authorized officer passed a provisional attachment order, i.e. the impugned order attaching land ad measuring 26 hectares of Rs. 4 crores of the petitioner and immovable property ad measuring 18 hectares to the extent of Rs. 15 crores having a total value of Rs. 20 crores.
A complaint was filed before the Adjudicating Authority, and an order was passed confirming the said provisional attachment order. The petitioner filed an instant writ petition to quash the impugned attachment order and prayed that the attached property, i.e. land measuring 26 hectares with a total value of Rs.4 crores, be released and substituted with a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.4 crores.
It was noted that in various decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts, the attachment order was lifted on producing a fixed deposit in lieu of part of the attached property with no lien of any other party except ED, and the order of attachment was allowed to be substituted by fixed deposit.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the land ad measuring 26 hectares attached vide the impugned order was to be substituted by a bank guarantee of an equivalent amount to be furnished by the petitioner in favour of the authorized officer. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner subject matter of instant application was legally justified and the instant petition was to be allowed.
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied