Property – Attachment of – Real Estate Project-Amrapali Group of companies – Applicant has filed I.A challenging the proceedings/order passed by DRT-III – Applicant had entered into agreement with the Amrapali Group for developing a colony on partnership basis – As per the agreement an entitlement of 40% of the share in the favour of the applicant in the inventory was agreed – In terms of this understanding, he was able to aggregate about
160 acres of land though actual development in terms of construction was never undertaken – He held 40% of the ‘yellow’ area in the concerned colony of Indore with all rights of selling – The applicant was informed that his presence was required before the DRT-III, New Delhi to explain the details with regard to the project in pursuance of the writ petition filed against Amrapali Group – DRTIII by its order, directed the registry to issue a request letter which is to be placed before Supreme Court for granting permission to sell the said area – The main contention of the applicant is that his liability stands confirmed only to the extent of Rs.4.79 crores and as such, there would be no justification to continue with the attachment of all the assets – It is in pursuance of the above proceedings that the matter is before Supreme Court – Held: There are two divergent views – According to the forensic auditors, the liability of applicant is to the tune of Rs.10.26 crores and also in the additional sum of Rs.2.31 crores; whereas, according to the ED, the extent of funds siphoned off were to the tune of Rs.4,79,76,180 only – At least Rs.21 crores were invested by Amrapali Group for purchase of these lands – Bulk of investment was made by them – Merely because the extent of money which was siphoned off has been put at the level of Rs.4.79 crores would not mean that lands beyond this value ought to be released in favour of applicant – The prayer made by applicant for releasing attachment of all the assets in question, cannot be granted at this stage. Rejecting the prayer for release of attachment, the Court
HELD: 1. There are two divergent views which are emanating from the record. According to the forensic auditors, the liability of applicant is to the tune of Rs.10.26 crores and also in the additional sum of Rs.2.31 crores; whereas, according to the ED, the extent of funds siphoned off by applicant were to the tune of Rs.4,79,76,180 only. But at the root of the entire controversy is the question whether applicant has any claim or title with respect to the property which is subject matter of attachment. The documents on which reliance has been placed in I.A. Nos. 8259 of 2019 and 74385 of 2020 are not registered documents nor have these I.As. been finally disposed of. Going by the tenor of I.A. No. 8259 of 2019, it is directed against the proceedings dated 11.12.2018, where the matter was not gone into by the DRT-III, New Delhi because of pendency of proceedings in this Court. There is thus no concrete and final determination with regard to the rights of applicant to the property which was subject matter of arrangements between the parties. Even at this stage, going by the prima facie view, at least Rs.21 crores were invested by Amrapali Group of Companies for purchase of these lands. By any standard, even without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, the bulk of the investment has come from Amrapali Group of Companies towards purchase of these properties. Merely because the extent of money which was siphoned off has been put at the level of Rs.4.79 crores would not mean that lands beyond this value ought to be released in favour of applicant. His entitlement is yet to be pronounced upon. In the circumstances, the prayer made by applicant for releasing attachment of all the assets in question, cannot be granted at this stage. In essence, the matter has to be considered along with I.A. Nos. 8259 of 2019 and 74385 of 2020. This Court, therefore, reject the prayer for release of attachment. [Paras 11 & 12][253E-H; 254-A-C]
Bikram Chatterji & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2019)
9 SCC 161 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.