R.P. INFOSYSTEMS LIMITED Vs. ADJUDICATION AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra court appeal filed by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dtd. 16/6/2023 in WPA No. 12335 of 2023. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant praying for issuance of a writ of declaration that the adjudicating authority under the provisions of the Preventing of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (the Act), the first respondent herein is statutorily incompetent to take up the case of the appellant in respect of OA No. 798 of 2023 and consequently to quash the said proceedings.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that the first appellant was awarded a DGS and D rate contract for supply of its products namely desktop, computers, laptops and computers peripherals to the Government sector which were produced under the brand named "CHIRAG".

(3.) In June 2011, IDBI Bank and the appellant entered into a loan syndication agreement they becoming the lead banker. On 1/2/2023, State Bank of Patiala (presently the State Bank of India) entered the consortium bankers who agreed to release to sanction limit of Rs.50.00 crores upon receipt of a no-objection certificate from IDBI Bank. It is stated that IDBI Bank to be issued letter dtd. 22/2/2013 based on which the State Bank of India released Rs.25.00 crores DD in favour of the appellant. By another letter dtd. 28/2/2013 credit information report of the appellant was furnished by IDBI to State Bank of India. Subsequently by letter dtd. 8/3/2013, it was stated by IDBI Bank that the aforementioned two letters were not issued by them and they sought for written clarification. Forensic report obtained by the State Bank of India stated that the letter dtd. 22/2/2013 there was no concrete evidence of forgery. On 11/5/2015, IDBI Bank requested CBI to initiate criminal proceedings against the appellant No. 1 and its directors in respect of two letters dtd. 22/2/2013 and 28/2/2013. CBI initiated criminal proceedings and has been laid on 30/12/2016 under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. In the meantime during 2018, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) commenced enquiry and investigation under the provisions of the PMLA Act. An order of provisional attachment under Sec. 5(1) of the PMLA Act was passed on 28/3/2018 and the said order was confirmed by the adjudicating authority, the first respondent on 11/9/2018. On 28/12/2022, the Enforcement Directorate conducted search and seizure operations under the provisions of the PMLA Act in the office of the first appellant and the residence of the second appellant and panchanama was drawn. The second appellant moved an application during January 2023 before the learned Special Judge for CBI cases for appointment of independent cyber expert from any government agency with a direction upon him to accompany and represent the second appellant at the time of data retrieval in the office of the investigation agency. The Special Court rejected the said application. Challenging the same, the appellant filed revision petition before this court in CRR No. 143 of 2023. In the said revision case, a direction was issued that the appellant shall be present in the office of ED on 13/1/2023 after which the Assistant Director, ED to prepare sealed cover of seized mobile phones and laptops in his presence and the articles will be sent to CFSL for data extraction and CFSL will in turn submit a report. This order was further clarified that the proceedings under Sec. 17(4) of the PMLA Act can continue but the adjudicating authority should not consider the CFSL report. On 5/5/2023, the first respondent informed the appellant that OA No. 798 of 2023 is listed on 12/5/2023 for final disposal before the adjudicating authority. It is stated that the learned advocate for the appellant prayed for adjournment as reply had been served to him during the course of the hearing and expressing certain other inconvenience as the learned advocate for the appellant was placed at Delhi at the relevant time. It is stated that the said prayer was rejected and the matter was fixed for passing orders. At this juncture, the writ petition was filed.