Bank Scam: HC asks adjudicating authority not to finalise proceedings against Chhattisgarh Steel and Power Limited
Jul 31, 2021
Raipur (Chhatisgarh) [India], July 31 : The High Court of Chhatisgarh has directed the Adjudicating Authority not to pass the final order in relation to the banking scam allegedly committed by Subhash Sharma of M/s Chhattisgarh Steel and Power Limited (CSPL) pertaining to Punjab National Bank (PNB) and Axis Bank.
Judge Gautam Bhaduri passed an order last week and granted interim relief to CSPL said.
"Considering the fact that the order of provisional attachment and the jurisdiction to pass the said order is under challenge, it is expected that the adjudicating authority shall not finalise the proceedings till the next date of hearing," the court said.
Later, the Court deferred the detailed hearing in the matter for August 16, after the Directorate of Enforcement sought time to reply to the contentions raised by the petitioner.
The Enforcement Directorate had passed a Provisional Attachment Order (PAO), thereby attaching properties of M/s Chhattisgarh Steel and Power seeking its confirmation, the Enforcement Directorate had filed an Original Complaint before the Adjudicating Authority.
The petitioner, M/s Chhattisgarh Steel and Power Ltd (CSPL) had filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh challenging the steps of the Enforcement Directorate of passing filing the original complaint and the Provisional Attachment Order, as well as the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, PMLA.
The Company M/s Chhattisgarh Steel and Power were represented by Advocate Vijay Aggarwal and Advocate Mudit Jain.
Advocate Aggarwal argued that the Enforcement Directorate had clubbed three separate predicate offences and attached the property of his client, which he argued was not in terms of the law.
He argued that the transaction in question was of the year 2012-13, whereas the two predicate offences were pertaining to loans by Banks given in the year 2014, and therefore had no connection with the same. He further argued that the Enforcement Directorate had by the PAO done double attachment, that is, the ED had both attached the Shares of M/s Chhattisgarh Steel and Power held by Subhash Sharma as well as its assets (i.e. Ferro Alloys Plant), and that double attachment is not permitted under the PMLA as the amounts of attachment was twice the alleged Proceeds of Crime.
The counsel of the petitioner further argued that the Directorate of Enforcement was under an obligation to record as well as supply the "Reasons to Believe" which it had before passing the PAO. And as the Directorate of Enforcement had failed to comply with said mandatory statutory requirements, the PAO was liable to be set aside," the lawyer argued.
