Latest news with #AdjudicatingAuthority
Time of India
22-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
ICICI-Videocon loan probe: PMLA appellate body upholds ED's property seizure in case against Chanda Kochhar
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The Appellate Tribunal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act has allowed the seizure of properties in a case involving former ICICI Bank chief executive Chanda Kochhar , her husband Deepak Kochhar and Videocon Group promoter Venugopal Dhoot , overturning a ruling of the Adjudicating Authority to release its order on an appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate that had attached the properties, the tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority "ignored crucial evidence" and based its ruling on "irrelevant considerations", particularly on the role of Deepak Kochhar in managing NuPower Renewables (NRPL) and a Rs 64 crore loan that the company received from Videocon-linked to the investigating agencies - ED and the CBI - this ₹ 64 crore was a quid pro quid for helping the Videocon Group get a loan from ICICI Bank where Deepak Kochhar's wife was a top executive. The Kochhars and Dhoot have denied the tribunal said the Adjudicating Authority placed undue emphasis on the shareholding structure of NRPL while overlooking material facts, including the control exercised by Deepak Kochhar as its managing director. On paper, the transfer of funds to NRPL may have been shown as from one Videocon Group company to another, "but if the veil is lifted, the affairs were under control of Deepak Kochhar", the tribunal said in its order pronounced tribunal ruled that the property transactions, including the transfer of a flat at CCI Chambers in South Mumbai were "nothing but proceeds of crime ". It noted that the flat purchased by a Videocon-linked entity for ₹3.25 crore was transferred to a family trust associated with Deepak Kochhar for just ₹11 rejected the defence's claim that the sanctioning of the loan to the Videocon Group was a collective decision at ICICI Bank, saying that Chanda Kochhar's active role, lack of disclosure and urgency in approving the loan raised serious concerns. It said as per rules, Chanda Kochhar should not have attended the meeting of a committee that cleared the loan, but she not only participated but also sanctioned the loan under the urgent category."This is taken to be nothing but commission of crime which includes even the offence under Section 420 IPC (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property)," the order upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision declining to confirm the attachment of ₹ 10.5 lakh seized during a raid on a Kochhar-linked company but confirmed the provisional attachment of all other that it did not find any illegality in the attachment, the tribunal said it "rather find perverse finding in the hands of the Adjudicating Authority on all the issues relevant to the case".
The Hindu
20-07-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Appellate Tribunal upholds ED's attachment of Chanda Kochhar's assets
The Appellate Tribunal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act has found a 'prima facie case' in the matter allegedly involving the former Chief Executive Officer of ICICI Bank Chanda Kochhar and others. In a recent order partially confirming the Enforcement Directorate's asset attachment, while hearing the agency's appeal against an order of the Adjudicating Authority, the Appellate Tribunal observed: 'It may be true that the issue will be determined by the trial court but we find a prima facie case against the respondents for commission of the offence of money laundering and, therefore, the provisional attachment order is justified.' After considering the submissions of both the sides, the Tribunal said: '...we cause interference in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority other than for attachment of ₹10.50 lakhs not confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. It is accordingly set aside other than for a sum of ₹10.5 lakhs attached by the appellant. The Provisional Attachment Order dated 10.01.2020 for the properties other than for ₹10.5 lakhs is confirmed'. The ED had challenged the order dated November 6, 2020, passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Its case is based on a first information report registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation on January 22, 2019. As noted in the order, the allegation against the accused was about the criminal conspiracy, cheating, illegal gratification, criminal misconduct and abuse of official position by the public servant. It was for sanction of loan to Videocon Group of Companies in contravention of the Rules and policies of the ICICI Bank. The loan granted to the Videocon Group of Companies for a sum of ₹1,730 crores turned Non-Performing Assets (NPA) and resulted in wrongful loss to the ICICI Bank and purported wrongful gain to the borrowers and the accused persons.
Indian Express
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
As ED attaches Robert Vadra's properties, here is how the process works
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has filed a chargesheet against businessman Robert Vadra, the brother-in-law of the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, and the husband of Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, in connection with a money laundering case over a land deal. An ED official said that after completing their investigation, a prosecution complaint was filed at the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi against 11 individuals or entities, including Robert Vadra's M/s Sky Light Hospitality Pvt Ltd. The court is yet to take cognisance of the prosecution complaint. 'Probe has revealed that the commercial license was also obtained by Robert Vadra on the land through his personal influence. A provisional attachment order was issued on July 16, 2025, in which 43 immovable properties amounting to Rs 37.64 crore pertaining to Robert Vadra and his entities M/s Sky Light Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and others have been attached,' the ED official said. How does the ED attach the properties of someone accused in a case, and what happens then? We explain. Provisional attachment According to Section 5 of PMLA, the Director of ED or any other officer (Deputy Director and above) authorised by him can issue orders for attachment of a property that is suspected to have been acquired with the proceeds of crime in a case of scheduled offence. The attachment order is issued if the Director feels that 'such proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to confiscation of such proceeds of crime'. The order is valid for 180 days. If it is not confirmed by an ED-appointed Adjudicating Authority by then, the property is automatically released. Because the initial attachment is provisional, the accused can continue to enjoy the property until the Adjudicating Authority confirms the attachment — after which the ED has the power to claim possession. However, this is largely a procedural step, because there is hardly any attachment under PMLA that the Adjudicating Authority has refused to confirm so far. Notably, properties in foreign locations can be attached after a Letter Rogatory is sent through a competent court to the concerned country. The relevant authority in that country then attaches the property. After the confirmation The accused has the right to challenge the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation order at the PMLA's Appellate Tribunal within 45 days. If the Appellate Tribunal too confirms the order, the accused can file a plea in the High Court, and so on. Unless the property is released along the way, it shall remain out of bounds for the owner until the trial is completed. Following final confirmation, in case of a residential property, the ED will ask the owner to vacate the premises along with his belongings, and will take over possession. In case of a conviction, the trial court may order confiscation of the attached property, and vest the rights to the property with the central government. Sitting and decaying Attached properties may remain locked for years, and start crumbling. There is a provision for a body to maintain such properties, but it has not been set up yet. Attached vehicles are sent to warehouses owned by the Central Warehousing Corporation, where the ED pays to park the vehicle. As cases drag on for years, the vehicles rot. At the end of the trial, neither the accused nor the ED recovers anything from the vehicle. The agency could, in fact, end up paying more rent than the value of the vehicle.
NDTV
26-06-2025
- Business
- NDTV
New India Assurance Gets GST Demand Notice Of Nearly Rs 2,300 Crore
New Delh: New India Assurance Company Ltd on Thursday said tax authorities have issued a show cause notice with a demand of Rs 2,298 crore Goods and Services Tax (GST) for five financial years. The company has received a show cause notice dated June 26, 2025, from the office of Additional Commissioner, Mumbai-South, and Maharashtra state, New India Assurance Company Ltd said in a regulatory filing. The notice requires the company to show cause as to why the alleged GST demand of Rs 22,98,06,74,252 for the period April 2018 to March 2023 should not be demanded from the insurer, it said. The company believes that it has a strong case on merit, it added. Based on the advice of our tax consultants, the company is in the process of filing a detailed reply highlighting the contentions of the company with the Adjudicating Authority within the prescribed timelines, the filing said.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
26-06-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
New India Assurance gets ₹2,298 cr GST demand notice for 5 financial years
New India Assurance Company Ltd on Thursday said tax authorities have issued a show cause notice with a demand of Rs 2,298 crore Goods and Services Tax (GST) for five financial years. The company has received a show cause notice dated June 26, 2025, from the office of Additional Commissioner, Mumbai-South, and Maharashtra state, New India Assurance Company Ltd said in a regulatory filing. The notice requires the company to show cause as to why the alleged GST demand of Rs 22,98,06,74,252 for the period April 2018 to March 2023 should not be demanded from the insurer, it said. The company believes that it has a strong case on merit, it added. Based on the advice of our tax consultants, the company is in the process of filing a detailed reply highlighting the contentions of the company with the Adjudicating Authority within the prescribed timelines, the filing said.
