HDFC BANK LIMITED Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
LAWS(PAT)-2021-6-89
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on June 28,2021

HDFC BANK LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Birendra Kumar, J. - (1.) A brief background of this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is that respondent No.5 Rajesh Kumar Agrawal, Proprietor of M/S. Maa Tara Agency had put in, the referred three immovable properties purchased through registered sale deed dated 13.10.2019 and two registered sale deeds dated 31.08.2016 as mortgage for securing the overdraft loan facility from the petitioner HDFC Bank Limited. For the purpose aforesaid, written agreements were executed between the petitioner and respondent No.5 on 05.08.2013 and thereafter on 24.08.2016 vide Annexure-1 and Annexure2.
(2.) Thereafter two FIRs were lodged on 13.12.2016. First was Gaya Civil Lines P.S. Case No.339 of 2016 registered under Sections 419/420/467/468/469/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The informant Shashi Kumar, the Proprietor of Firm Shiva Agro Industries alleged that he had a bank account, in the Bank of India, G.B. Road Branch, Gaya, opened on 12.11.2016 bearing A/C. No. 447520110000742. Younger brothers of the informant, namely, Shailesh Kumar and Rajnish Kumar, had also separate bank accounts opened on 07.09.2016 in the same branch. On 07.12.2016 the informant inquired from the bank about debit and credit status in the said accounts and it was noticed that huge cash were deposited in the said accounts by some fake persons and money was transferred to some other accounts. It is worth to mention that demonetization was enforced on 08.11.2016. The statement of the bank account enclosed with the FIR would reveal that from 12th of October, 2016 to 18th November, 2016 huge transactions of credit and debit were there. Another FIR was Gaya Civil Lines P.S. Case No.340 of 2016 registered under the identical sections of the Penal Code on the report of one Rajesh Kumar making identical averment in the FIR that Rajesh and his wife Rubi Kumari had opened bank account on 07.09.2016 in the same branch of Bank of India. On 07.12.2016 they were informed about the huge transaction of credit and debit in their account by some unknown person. The bank statement shows that in between 15th September, 2016 to 17th of November, 2016 huge deposit of cash and transfer of the money to some other accounts was made.
(3.) During investigation it surfaced that from the FIR referred accounts money was transferred to the Bank account of M/S. Maa Tara Agency of respondent No.5 too. Hence, involvement of respondent No.5 and others in money laundering was prima facie found established. Thereafter, the Enforcement Directorate registered Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) No. PTZO/05/2016 on 26.12.2016. The Deputy Director of Enforcement by the impugned order dated 18.09.2017 provisionally attached the above referred three mortgaged properties besides bank accounts etc of respondent No.5 in exercise of power under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PMLA'). Those properties are mentioned in para 17.2 Items Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the impugned order dated 18.09.2017 at Annexure-3 corresponding to Annexure D to the counter affidavit. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.