BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: [2022] 9 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 07-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Directions issued

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
239
BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[I.A. Nos. 8259 of 2019, 74385 of 2020, 90985 of 2020
and 90986 of 2020]
In
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 940 of 2017)
NOVEMBER 07, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
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 – DRT-
III 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
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 239
239
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
240
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
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][253-
E-H; 254-A-C]
Bikram Chatterji & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2019)
9 SCC 161 – referred to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
241
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.