Latest news with #M3M
Time of India
2 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Punjab & Haryana HC chief justice recuses from hearing M3M's plea
CHANDIGARH Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu has recused himself from hearing a plea seeking to quash a corruption case against a real estate developer. Roop Bansal , director of real estate firm M3M, filed a petition against the FIR registered against him by the Haryana Anti-Corruption Bureau under the Prevention of Corruption Act in Panchkula on April 17, 2023. After the matter came up for hearing on July 3, the chief justice asked the petitioner's counsel whether they had any objection to his hearing the case after the matter was withdrawn from a single judge on the administrative side. The petitioner's counsel informed the CJ's court that the client sought some other bench to hear the case. The matter, as a result, was marked to another bench. In May, the chief justice withdrew the case from the single judge after receiving "oral and written" complaints. The case was withdrawn from the judge after he reserved the judgement in the matter. The chief justice then constituted another bench comprising himself. Though the petitioner's counsel objected to the withdrawal of the case from the single bench, arguing that the "heard and reserved" matter by a bench couldn't be withdrawn, the chief justice in a detailed order said the powers of the high court top judge as the master of the roster were "wide, pervading and plenary". The court had said it was done to "preserve the dignity and honour" of the institution and protect the "reputation and dignity" of the judge. The case was registered against Bansal, Sudhir Parmar, then Panchkula special CBI judge and others under relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC in April 2023.
Deccan Herald
4 days ago
- Business
- Deccan Herald
Supreme Court allows M3M's plea to substitute land of real estate company, attached under PMLA
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and R Mahadevan, while hearing a plea filed by M3M, held that a property attached under the PMLA may be substituted by an alternate asset of equivalent or higher value.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Supreme Court allows M3M's plea to substitute attached land with commercial units
The Supreme Court has allowed realty developer M3M's plea to substitute land attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), with other commercial property of similar value so that the developer can monetise the land. In it's order on June 30, the SC has said the order 'shall not be treated as precedent'. In July 2024, Directorate of Enforcement (ED), had provisionally attached immovable properties, spanning 88.29 acres and valued at Rs 300.11 crore belonging to M3M India in an ongoing case. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like War Thunder - Register now for free and play against over 75 Million real Players War Thunder Play Now Undo 'While the SC has allowed the substitution of land by the order, the Court has made it categorically clear that this decision would not considered as a precedent. In cases where there is a fact specific adjudication by the SC, it is a usual practice to make it clear for the subordinate Courts that facts of each case would be considered on its own merits and the judgment would not be a binding precedent,' said Ashish K Singh, Managing Partner, Capstone Legal. M3M has given details of 317 commercial units valuing Rs 317 crore which will be attached. Live Events In order to assess the fair market value of the said commercial units, this Directorate engaged valuator registered with Income Tax Department. 'While the land can be monetised and project can offer 10 times revenue than the land value, the value or commercial units are not likely to increase further. The decision will improve M3M's revenue and cash flow and will also help in business continuity,' said a real estate expert. The substitution is subjected to developer following conditions put by ED, which include, submission of no encumbrance certificate, undertaking not to alienate, submission of title documents, indemnity bond, undertaking to safeguard the third party rights created for other commercial units of the project, consent to hand over possession of alternate assets, disclosure of source of acquisition funds, cooperation with investigation and no prejudice to ongoing investigation or trial. 'This is a progressive order and will positively influence other ongoing matters of a similar nature. Notably, the substitution mechanism does not dilute enforcement power under PMLA. Rather, it strengthens procedural fairness and reflects a maturing jurisprudence that understands the real-world implications of criminal law on business continuity,' said Parimal Tripathi of Sutradhar Associates.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
10-06-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Indian realty companies building up over Rs 15,000 crore IPO pipeline
Robust housing sales growth after the pandemic has prompted leading developers to unleash relevant inventory across markets, experts said premium New Delhi Listen to This Article Indian real estate, often described as an unorganised sector, is busy planning initial public offerings (IPOs). Several companies in the sector are firming up their strategies to tap the capital market over the next few months to raise more than ₹15,000 crore through IPOs, sources said. Noida-headquartered BPTP Ltd, M3M group-owned Smartworld Developers, Gaursons India and Mumbai-based Wadhwa group are among those planning to list their companies either in FY26 or FY27, according to multiple people aware of the discussions. BPTP Ltd is learnt to have appointed bankers with plans to raise more than ₹5,000 crore, according to senior industry
Hindustan Times
28-05-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Reassigned case: HC turns down Gurugram builder's request to withdraw petition
The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) on Tuesday rejected a request from a Gurugram builder to withdraw his petition, seeking quashing of an FIR, wherein former judge of special CBI court, Haryana, Sudhir Parmar, is also an accused. This is the same case where on May 23, the bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu had rejected objections to withdraw the case from a judge after 'oral and written complaints' received by the chief justice. Justice Nagu in the May 23 order had said, the decision was taken to 'preserve the dignity and honour of the institution'. After withdrawing the case, the chief justice had ordered the listing of the case before him. The decision to withdraw the case was taken on May 10, two days before the judge, who had heard the matter, was to pronounce the final order. The petition is of real estate firm M3M's director, Roop Bansal, which seeks to quash a first information report filed by the Haryana anti-corruption bureau in April 2023 against Parmar, his nephew and M3M official Roop Bansal. During the hearing on Tuesday, appearing for Bansal, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi had requested that he be allowed to withdraw the petition. 'When an accused has right to file a petition, he should also have the right to withdraw it,' Singhvi had submitted. Justice Nagu, however, declined the request, orally observing, 'The way this case has been conducted, I would decline your request of the withdrawal.' The court later posted the matter for May 29. However, the detailed order neither mentions about the request nor about the court not yielding to the same. Notably, during the hearing on Monday, the court had hinted at possible 'forum shopping' by the petitioner in the case in hand. The case had to be adjourned on Monday as petitioner side's arguing counsel was not available. 'The present special bench has been created after carving out and encroaching upon the time meant for Division Bench-I and it is unfortunate that such a request is made on behalf of the petitioner in a case listed before this Special Bench,' the bench had recorded in its order on Monday. Senior Supreme Court lawyer Mukul Rohtagi had appeared on May 23 from petitioner's side. The case stems from an April 2023 FIR, registered against Sudhir Parmar, Ajay Parmar, Roop Bansal, and others under sections 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for offences relating to public servant being bribed, a public servant taking undue advantage without consideration from person concerned in proceedings or business transacted by such public servant, criminal misconduct by a public servant and criminal conspiracy. Sudhir Parmar, who at that point of time was special CBI judge, Panchkula, was accused of alleged favouritism towards Roop Bansal and his brother Basant Bansal of M3M and Lalit Goyal of the IREO Group. The Bansals and Goyal were accused in some FIRs being investigated by CBI and ED, pending before the court presided over by Parmar. .
