HC Permits Petitioner to Replace Provisionally Attached Land With Equivalent Bank Guarantee Citing Legal Precedents

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.