Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs. Heera Gold Exim Private Limited And Ors. Etc

ITEM NO.14

COURT NO.2

SECTION II

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal No(s). 761-762/2021

THE STATE OF TELANGANA REPBY SPECIAL OFFICER VANDHANA & ORS.

Appellant( $s$ )

VERSUS

M/S HEERA GOLD EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

W.P.(Crl.) No. 31/2020 (X)

(I.A. D.159905 of 2022- For intervention, I.A. 189174 of 2022- For Impleadment I.A. No.189188 of 2022- for directions I.A. No.21013 of 2023- For intervention)

Date: 28-03-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

For Parties	Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv.<br>Mr. A. S. Rawat, Sr. Adv.<br>Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Adv.<br>Mr. Ankit Shah, Adv.<br>Mr. Prashant Andrew Leo, Adv.<br>Mr. Sadashiv, AOR
	Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv.<br>Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, Adv.<br>Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhary, AOR<br>Ms. Pallavi, Adv.<br>Mr. Duvvuri Subrahmanya Bhanu, Adv.

Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. S. Rawat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vidya Sagar, Adv. Ms. Agrima Shankar, Adv. Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Bansal, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Bansal, AOR

Mr. Sanjay Jain, A.S.G. Mr. Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Ms. Sairica Raju, Adv. Mr. Sughosh Subramanian, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. S.v. Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Sanjay Jain, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Sairica Raju, Adv. Mr. Sughosh Subramaniyam, Adv. Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv.

Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv.

Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR

Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Abraham C. Mathew, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv.

Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv. Mr. K V Girish Chowdary, Adv. Mr. T Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Niti Richhariya, Adv.

Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. Vishal Banshal, Adv. Ms. Rajeshawari Shankar, Adv. Mr. Niroop Sukirithy, Adv.

Mr. Sadineni Ravi Kumar, AOR

Mrs. Anjana Prakash, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anuj Prakash, Adv. Mr. Niraj Dubey, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais, AOR Mrs. Anjana Prakash, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anuj Prakash, Adv. Mr. Niraj Dubey, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR Mr. Avinash Sharma, AOR Mr. Md. Rashid Saeed, AOR Ms. Rumani Datta, Adv. Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aakarshan Aditya, AOR Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv. Mr. Vibhu Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Keshav Khandelwal, Adv. Mr. Sadineni Ravi Kumar, AOR Mr. Gaurav Goel, AOR Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh, AOR Ms. Shreya Saxena, Adv. Ms. Yamini Singh, Adv. Ms. Aadya Yadav, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR Mr. K. P. Rajagopal, Adv. Mr. Jaimon Andrews, Adv. Mr. Piyo Harold Jaimon, Adv. Mr. Harikrishna R, Adv. Mr. Firdouse C.P., Adv. Mr. Mohd Zahid Hussain, Adv. Ms. Mumtaz Javed Shaikh, Adv. Mr. Camran Iqbal, Adv.

Ms. Abiha Abbas Zaidi, Adv.

Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, AOR Mr. M. R. Shamshad, AOR Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR Mr. Tabrez Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Tashriq Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Shane Elahi Turkey, Adv. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Adv. Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, AOR Mr. Omkar Jayant Deshpande, Adv. Mrs. Pradnya Shashibhushan Adgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, AOR Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ranjay Kumar Dubey, AOR Mr. Avinash Sharma, AOR Mr. K. S. Kulkarni, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. S. K. Rajora, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Vijay Lakshmi, Adv. Ms. Kajal Kumari, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Ms. Shweta Sand, Adv. Mr. Narendra Pal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, Adv. Mr. Siddharath Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Ms. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Avineesh Jha, Adv. Mr. Mansoor Ali, AOR Ms. Rubina Jawed, Adv. Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

We have perused the affidavit filed on behalf of the SFIO on 24.3.2023.

The affidavit shows that claims have been verified and the result of the aforesaid is that the amount of verified claims received upto the date of 30.11.2022 as described is Rs.498.33 crores while the claims found to be with deficiency is Rs.78.59 crores. In a nutshell even if the deficiencies were to be removed, we are looking to claims of about Rs.580 crores. The offer made by the petitioner(s) as submitted is of about Rs.641 crores.

Next it is pointed out that in view of our observations in the order dated 10.11.2022 data has been collected in relation to the NBWs issued from different Courts and different States. We have already observed therein that we will pass necessary protective orders for the petitioner(s) once the amounts come in.

Details have been given in paragraph 10 of the payments made from the deposited amount of Rs.6,00,00,000/- and further payments required to be made to the CA for advertisement and photocopy charges have been specified therein to which there is no contest in any case and those payments can be made.

We may however flag the issue that the fourth tranche of the SFL report is still awaited. Only partial data has been received till date. The SFL is expected to expedite as this issue is pending now for quite sometime and we would require them to complete the task at the earliest preferably before the next date.

The last aspect arises from the claim made by certain applicants in respect of the land in question which is sought to be sold as the claimants pleaded that part of the land was theirs. The issue is one of demarcation and thus we directed a joint demarcation to take place in the presence of the parties qua which a report has been submitted.

I.A. D.159905 of 2022- For intervention, I.A. 189174 of 2022- For Impleadment I.A. No.189188 of 2022- for directions I.A. No.21013 of 2023- For intervention

We have perused the report of the revenue authorities and heard learned counsel for parties at some length. What emerges from the report is that the applicants claim rights of the total area marked in pink. The applicants in IA No. 189714/2022 further claim that pursuant to the decree dated 19.11.2018 passed by the Court of Ld. III Additional Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad in O.S. No. 896 of 2015 they are the absolute owners of the concerned property. The applicants in other applications claim their rights as subsequent purchasers of the property, which they claim to have purchased from the original owner of the property.

On the other hand, the petitioner(s) claims right in what is marked in green on account of sale deeds in their favour. This green portion forms a part of the larger pink portion. It appears that the decrees obtained in application(s) by the applicants was against another set of third parties who in turn have sold the green portion to the petitioner(s) as claimed.

Suffice for us to say that there are various claimants raising inter title disputes relating to the land in question which cannot be settled here but would be settled in appropriate proceedings. We thus clarify that whatever order we now propose to pass is not a reflection on the merits or on any claim of any of the parties but those claims will be determined in appropriate proceedings, pending or to be filed.

Now coming to the offer brought by the petitioner(s). It is the categorical say of the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner(s) as recorded in the order dated 05.12.2022 that the persons who are depositing their amounts in this Court are quite aware of these disputes relating to the land and have consciously decided to step in the shoes of the petitioner(s). They are conscious that they may get some right or may not get some right.

The aforesaid being the position and all parties being conscious of what they are proposing to do, especially the prospective purchasers, so far as this Court is concerned, they are only interested in the claims of the investors to be met and if prospective purchasers knowing the position aforesaid are willing to deposit the amount of Rs.641 crores odd, we are inclined to permit them to make the deposit and on such deposit being made the attachment of ED will be lifted but leaving all the parties to their remedies for respective rights claimed in respect of the land in question.

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) on instructions from the petitioner(s) states that the petitioner(s) may be given time of

three months to ensure that the amount is deposited in Court. We accede to the request. The bonafides of the petitioner(s) will really be tested when the money comes in.

In view thereof no further orders are required in these application(s) in either eventuality i.e. the money coming or not coming in.

Applications accordingly stand disposed of.

If the learned counsel requires to give some other assistance they are most welcome.

W.P.(Crl.) No. 31/2020

In view of orders passed on the aforesaid applications, we have to now await the amount to arrive in this Court.

We may notice one aspect: one of the applicant represented by Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel has sought to produce in Court some documents inter alia showing that some affidavits have been filed by the petitioner(s) whereby other lands have been dealt with. If they are being dealt with and apparently were also under attachment, the monies would be required to be brought in to the SFIO. On this aspect, the SFIO may look into it and the petitioner(s) will render full cooperation in this behalf. The petitioner will give to the SFIO a list of properties sold.

Insofar as the issue of respondent No.13 is concerned as referred to in our order dated 31.1.2023, learned counsel for the

petitioner(s) submits that the amount was transmitted and he will file an affidavit with the proof of the RTGS transfer within two weeks.

List on 25th July, 2023.

(RASHMI DHYANI PANT) (POONAM VAID) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER