BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS

                          [2022] 9 S.C.R. 239                                239


                   BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORS.                                   A
                                    v.
                     UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
        [I.A. Nos. 8259 of 2019, 74385 of 2020, 90985 of 2020
                          and 90986 of 2020]                                 B
                                   In
                 (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 940 of 2017)
                        NOVEMBER 07, 2022
  [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]                            C
       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            D
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,              E
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             F
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         G
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              H
                                   239
240            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 9 S.C.R.


A     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
B            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
C
      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
D     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.
E
      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
F     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
G
      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)
H           9 SCC 161 – referred to.
  BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                       241


     CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I.A. Nos. 8259 of 2019,                A
74385, 90985, 90986 of 2020 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 940 of 2017.
      Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India
      Sanjay Jain, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASGs, Ms. Garima Prasad,
AAG, Ravindra Kumar, Siddhartha Dave, Ms. V. Mohana, P.N. Mishra,
Rakesh K. Khanna, Kavin Gulati, S.K. Gangele, Ms. Garima Prashad,        B
Brijender Chahar, Surendra Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Sr. Advs., Avinash
Kumar, Rajeev Gupta, M. L. Lahoty, Paban K. Sharma, Anchit Sripat,
Himanshu Shekhar, Pranab Kumar Nayak, Kumar Mihir, Binay Kumar
Das, Ms. Priyanka Das, Ms. Neha Das, Ms. Saloni Sharan, Gudipati G.
Kashyap, Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Ms. T. Archana, Manoj Singh, Sanjay         C
Kumar Visen, Ms. Ritu Rastogi, Ms. Mohini Kumari, Sunil Kumar Ojha,
Gurmeet Singh, Aman, Arkaj Kumar, Madhav Singhal, Mukesh Kumar
Maroria, Mukul Singh, Ms. Preeti Rani, Mohd. Akhil, Prashant Singh,
Sughosh Subramnyam, Vikrant Yadav, R.R. Rajesh, Raj Bahadur Yadav,
Gurmeet Singh Makker, Nachiketa Joshi, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Niraj
Gupta, Ms. Anshu Gupta, Fuzail Khan, Ashutosh Srivastava, Ms. Ramya      D
Khanna, Ashish J., Alok Kr. Aggarwal, Ms. Anushruti, Ms. Simran Arora,
Ms. Anubha Agrawal, A. P. Mohanty, Prathvi Raj Chauhan, Ms. Priya
Sharma, Ms. Ruchira Goel, Abhitosh Pratap Singh, Ms. Rita Bhandari,
Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra, Ms. Vaidruti Mishra, Kamlendra
Mishra, Ms. Jyoti Chahar, Karan Chahar, Ms. Pooja Chahar, Shashi         E
Bhushan, Vinay Garg, M. T. George, Ms. Susy Abrahm, Johns George,
Rajiv Kumar, Kishlay Shukla, Ms. Purnima Jain, Sanjeev Gupta, Rishi
K. Awasthi, Prashant Kumar, Ms. Ritu Arora, Piyush Vatsa, Santosh
Kumar-I, H.S. Parihar, Kuldeep S. Parihar, Ms. Ikshita Parihar,
Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Vedant Bharadwaj, Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj,
Rakesh Kailash Sharma, Ajay Bansal, Gaurav Yadava, Ms. Beena             F
Bansal, Saurav Jindal, Kuldip Singh, G. N. Reddy, Alok Kumar,
Ms. Garima Soni, Ms. Neetu Rashi, Rohit Pandit, Ms. Nandita Jha, Vivek
Kumar Pandey, Krishna Kant Dubey, Ms. Shuchi Singh, Sanjay Kumar
Dubey, Jainendra Kumar, Aman Kumar, Binod Kumar Singh, Kirshna
Vani Sharma, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, S.K. Rajora, Akhileshwar Jha,          G
Ms. Yamini Sharma, Narendra Pal Sharma, Ms. Sandhya Sharma, Ranjit
Kumar Sharma, Ms. Richa Kapoor, Kunal Anand, Ms. Shivani Sharma,
Sanjay Kapur, Ms. Megha Karnwal, Arjun Bhatia, Ms. Akshata Joshi,
Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Pradeep Misra, Daleep Dhyani, Manoj Kumar
Sharma, Suraj Singh, Saket Singh, Ms. Sangeeta Singh, Ms. Niranjana
                                                                         H
242            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 9 S.C.R.


A     Singh, Ashok Kumar Singh, Shantwanu Singh, Ms. Pragya Singh,
      Ms. Akshay Singh, Dr. Ritu Bhardwaj, Sachin Mittal, Rachit Mittal, Parish
      Kumar, Ms. Pooja Kapur, Sudhir Naagar, Pai Amit, Ms. Komal Mundhra,
      Saurabh Agrawal, Shantanu Singh, Amitesh Chandra Mishra, Ankit
      Chaturvedi, Niteen Kumar Sinha, Ms. Reetu Saipawar, Ms. Pratibha
      Yadav, Ram Naresh for ACM Legal, Devendra Kumar Singh, Karunakar
B
      Mahalik, Arpit Rai, Aviral Kashyap, Anil Gaur, Ms. Neha Chaudhary,
      Dr. Sunil K. Khattri, Ambrish Kumar Rai, Badri Prasad Singh, Vikas
      Jain, Aviral Saxena, Manjeet Singh Rathor, Digant Mishra, G.A. Sundram,
      Raj Kamal, Aseem Atwal, Zafar Inayat, Satyajit Desai, Siddharth Gautam,
      Satya Kam Sharma, Ms. Deb Deepa Majumdar, Ms. Gajanan Tirthkar,
C     Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Mohit Chaudhary, Ms. Pooja Sharma, Kunal
      Sachdeva, Chowdhary Zulfikar Ali, M/s. Kings & Alliance LLP, Sanveer
      Mehlwal, Ms. Geetanjali Mehlwal, Ms. Shradha Agrawal, Ms. Kamakshi
      S. Mehlwal, Ms. Arti Singh, Akashdeep Singh Roda, Basant Pal Singh,
      Ms. Pooja Singh, Kaushal Yadav, Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Arjun
      Raghuvanshi, Pramod Kumar, Vivekanand Rana, Ms. Yashoda Katiyar,
D
      Ms. Apeksha Rai, Ms. Akansha Rai, Abhijit Sengupta, Rohit Jaiswal,
      Ms. Kuheli Mitra, Shiv Singh Yadav, Karan Singh Chhabra, Ms. Sujata
      Kurdukar, Ms. Tanuj Bagga Sharma, Ashutosh Shukla, Dr. M. K. Ravi,
      Raj Kamal, Kartavya Batra, Anurag Chandra, Siddharth Acharya,
      Ms. Sonali Agarwal, Ms. Mithu Jain, Rajul Shrivastav, Ms. Monisha
E     Handa, Mohit D. Ram, Anubhav Sharma, Janender Kumar Chumbak,
      Ms. Radhika, Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, Sureshan P., Ms. Roma Singh,
      Utkarsh Singh, Gautam Das, Tarun Kant Samantray, Dhirendra Kumar
      Jha, Ms. Sanjana Akhilesh Singh, Ms. Gitanjali Tripathi, Ms. Jasmine
      Damkewala, Ms. Vaishali Sharma, Ms. Lovely Gargi, Bhupendra Kumar
      Singh, Devendra Kumar Shukla, Amit Kumar, Abhishek Kumar Suman,
F
      Ramesh Babu M. R., Ms. Manisha Singh, Ms. Tanya Chowdhary,
      Ms. Shobha Gupta, Ms. Pooja Tripathi, Rohit Kumar Singh, Rohit
      Khurana, Ms. Jahanvi Warah, Krishnam Mishra, Param Kumar Mishra,
      Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, Ms. Nisha Thakur, Brijesh Kumar Tamber, Yashu
      Rustagi, Ashutosh, M/s. V. Maheshwari & Co., Rohit Amit Sthalekar,
G     Avi Tandon, Rajeev Lochan, Prithvi Pal, Rinki Singh, Anand Nandan,
      Amit Pawan, Dr. Ritu Bhardwaj, Naresh Kumar, Kaushal Kishore,
      Devendra Singh, Parul Dhurve, Omanakuttan K.K., Mohd. Moonis
      Abbasi, Shakil Ahmad Syed, Ms. Smita Pandey, Narendra Kr. Verma,
      Aditya Nayyar, Ms. Farhat Jahan Rehmani, Suman Tripathy, Rameshwar
      Prasad Goyal, Ms. Indrani Mukherjee, Ms. Tatini Basu, Alok Kumar,
H
  BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                          243


Chandan Kumar, M/s. Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, Abhigya                   A
Kushwah, Divyakant Lahoti, Rajesh P., Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Deepak
Prakash, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Tushar Singh, M/s. Cyril Amarchand
Mangaldas, Shovan Mishra, Kumar Dushyant Singh, Aditya Jain-1,
Ms. E. R. Sumathy, Ashok Mathur, Vivek Narayan Sharma, Satish
Pandey, Abhinav Shrivastava, Dheeraj Nair, Balaji Srinivasan, Ms. Charu
                                                                            B
Ambwani, Dr. Sarvam Ritam Khare, Malak Manish Bhatt, Sanchit Garg,
Prateek K Chadha, Udita Singh, Amrish Kumar, M/s. Devasa & Co.,
M/s. PBA Legal, Sanjeev Gupta, Divyesh Pratap Singh, Sumit Kumar,
Ms. Taruna Singh Gohil, Deepak Goel, Sonal Jain, Vivek Sharma, Jasmeet
Singh, Shubham Bhalla, Kanhaiya Singhal, Arup Banerjee, Anuj Kapoor,
Ms. Charu Mathur, Abhinav Agrawal, Ms. Sangeeta Singh, Ms. Sayaree          C
Basu Mallik, Shishir Pinaki, G. Balaji, B. K. Satija, Ms. Pallavi Pratap,
Manish Kumar Saran, Sukant Vikram, Gopal Jha, Shadan Farasat,
Kailash Prashad Pandey, Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, Mohammed Sadique
T.A., Gaurav Goel, Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Ms. Rakhi Ray, Ms. Tulika
Mukherjee, Rabin Majumder, Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Praveen Chaturvedi,
                                                                            D
Siddhartha Jha, Ms. Prerna Mehta, Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Ms. Sneha
Kalita, Jay Kishor Singh, Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Somesh Chandra
Jha, Awanish Sinha, Somiran Sharma, Ms. Astha Sharma, Pramod Dayal,
Alok Tripathi, Ms. Vandana Sehgal, Ms. Anannya Ghosh, Sanjai Kumar
Pathak, Aakarshan Aditya, Pawanshree Agrawal, Syed Mehdi Imam,
K. Paari Vendhan, Ashwarya Sinha, Ms. Kirti Renu Mishra,                    E
M/s. Karanjawala & Co., Kumar Sudeep, Ms. Dharitry Phookan, Gaurav,
Ms. Manisha Ambwani, Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, Ms. Mona K.
Rajvanshi, Mishra Saurabh, Christopher D’souza, Ms. Divya Roy, Kabir
Dixit, S. K. Verma, Somanatha Padhan, Ms. Anindita Pujari, Rajat Mittal,
Rahul Joshi, Vipin Kumar Jai, Ravindra Sadanand Chingale, Sumit Sinha,
                                                                            F
T. Mahipal, Ms. Shilpa Liza George, M/s. D.S.K. Legal, Vishnu Sharma,
Ritesh Agrawal, Ms. Indra Sawhney, Aneesh Mittal, Vishal Gupta, Aman
Gupta, Chandra Prakash, Bhuwan Raj, E. C. Vidya Sagar, Uddyam
Mukherjee, Anil Kumar Mishra-I, Kaushik Choudhury, Anas Tanwir,
Ejaz Maqbool, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Rishi Matoliya, Tahir Ashraf
Siddiqui, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Anoop Prakash Awasthi, Kedar Nath Tripathy,     G
Ms. Rashmi Singh, Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Rajkumari Banju, Ajit Sharma,
Ms. Aruna Gupta, Advs. for the appearing parties.
     R. Venkataramani, Court Receiver, Ravinder Bhatia, Pavan
Aggarwal, Forensic Auditors.
                                                                            H
244                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 9 S.C.R.


A               The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI
                I.A. No. 8259 of 2019
              1. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by Mr. Prem
B     Mishra1, challenging the proceedings/order dated 11.12.2018 passed by
      the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT)-III, New Delhi
      and for issuance of directions to the DRT to proceed strictly in terms of
      the order dated 12.9.2018 in respect of 12 lakh square feet offered in
      the affidavit of Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Chairman and Managing Director,
      Amrapali Group of Companies, without involving the area earmarked in
C     ‘yellow’ in terms of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and
      authorisations in favour of the applicant.
             2. According to the applicant, Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma met the
      applicant some times in June, 2006 and a business plan was proposed for
      developing a colony on partnership basis as an Amrapali Group project
D     with its brand name. The applicant was to invest his time, resources,
      experience and contacts apart from providing other services and expertise
      necessary for undertaking the development of the land. Essentially, the
      work to be undertaken by the applicant was in the nature of securing
      land from local farmers, getting titles searched, getting layout of the colony
E     made, getting user changed from agricultural to residential, obtaining
      requisite information including No Objection Certificates from the
      concerned departments, making necessary advertisement(s) and in the
      nature of aggregating the land bank for the purposes of development by
      Amrapali Group of Companies. This was done primarily because Amrapali
      Group of Companies had no footprint in Indore and it was trying to
F     expand its business in Indore. According to the applicant, in terms of
      agreement dated 18.1.2017, an entitlement of 40% share in favour of
      the applicant in the inventory was agreed.
             3. According to the applicant, in terms of this understanding, he
      was able to aggregate an extent of about 160 acres of land though actual
G     development in terms of construction was never undertaken. According
      to the applicant, in terms of the aforesaid agreement dated 18.1.2017,
      the land shown in ‘yellow’ colour would come to the share of the applicant
      while the land marked in orange colour was booked by the customers.
      It is asserted that after the matters pertaining to Amrapali Group of
      1
H         “the applicant”
  BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                           245
             [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI]

Companies were being considered by this Court in Writ Petitions (Civil)      A
No. 940 of 2017 and other connected matters, attempts were made to
locate and get the details of the projects undertaken by the Amrapali
Group of Companies throughout the country. In that light, the applicant
was informed by Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Chairman and Managing
Director, Amrapali Group of Companies that his presence was required
                                                                             B
before the DRT-III, New Delhi to explain the details with regard to the
project. In pursuance thereof, the applicant appeared before the DRT-
III on 27.10.2018 and he became aware of orders dated 4.9.2018, 6.9.2018
and 12.9.2018 passed by this Court. After the applicant had presented
his view point, the proceedings dated 11.12.2018 with regard to which
the principal prayer has been made, took place before the DRT-III, New       C
Delhi.
      4. Said proceedings dated 11.12.2018 indicate as under: -
      “Heard. Record has thoroughly been perused. In the present matter,
      Shri Prem Mishra, Objector has relied upon the agreement of
      mutual consent and claiming that he has developed approximately        D
      160 acres land which was purchased with the consent of the first
      party and entire dues of the Amrapali has been recovered and
      further it is now being consented that in case of profit of more
      than 100 crores then 30% of the profit will be given to him and
      the period of two years granted to Prem Mishra on 14.10.2009.          E
      Already 4-5 years have been elapsed, hence it is agreed that the
      40% of the aforesaid colony project will be given to the second
      party i.e. Prem Mishra and rest of the 60% shall be kept by Amrapali
      builders.
      Apparently, the applicant i.e. Prem Mishra herein is relying upon      F
      the Memorandum of Understanding between the parties. It is well
      settled proposition of the law that there is a difference between
      Memorandum of Understanding as well as agreement, as the MOU
      is a written document which describe the terms as an agreement
      and the element of MOU as offer, acceptance and intention and
      consideration. Apparently, the present MOU was executed                G
      between Prem Mishra and Amrapali on 18.01.2017, whereas it is
      so mentioned that the Prem Mishra has been working with the
      project for the last 4-5 years and at that moment no such
      agreement was executed between the parties, which clearly
      indicates that the present agreement has been executed just to         H
246      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 9 S.C.R.


A     avoid the liability accrued against the Amrapali Homes Project
      Pvt. Ltd. there is nothing on the record exists. The agreement to
      sell placed on record executed by Prem Mishra and the private
      seller of the property, that no such services were continuously been
      provided by Prem Mishra in the project. Had there been such
      mutual understanding, he would be entitled to share the 30% of
B
      the profit then such like agreement has to be executed and entered
      into between the parties at the time of launching of the project.
      Apparently, the project was launched way back in year 2006. The
      past services rendered by Prem Mishra are not voluntarily rather
      he was specifically authorized and worked as attorney of Amrapali.
C     Hence, no substantive right, title and interest stand created in favour
      of Prem Mishra.
      On behalf of Amrapali, it is clearly mentioned that Prem Mishra
      was merely authorized to purchase the agricultural land and make
      payment for purchase of the property, buy stamp papers and make
D     negotiation with prospective sellers for and on behalf of the
      company. Further, Prem Mishra was authorized to execute sale
      deed for and on behalf of the company, therefore, he was merely
      authorized to do these types of work. Though a promise to
      compensate, wholly or in part, a person who has already voluntarily
      done something for the promisor, or something which the promisor
E     was legally compellable to do. No doubt for the thing voluntarily
      done by a person for their promisor, he can be compensated, but
      here in the present matter this is not a case as Shri Prem Mishra
      was merely authorized to do certain things on behalf of the
      company i.e. purchasing of land and executing the sale deed etc.
F     and for the purpose the entire chunk of land consisting of 40% of
      100 acres approx. cannot be deemed to be transferred in the
      favour of Prem Mishra. No doubt, the area which has been
      disclosed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as 12 Lacs sq. mtrs.
      As shown in ‘Green’ colour in the map, but apart that, the area
      shown in ‘Yellow’ colour, which stated to come in the share of
G     Prem Mishra, on the basis of things done by him in the previous,
      cannot be deemed to be transferred and apparently, there is active
      connivance between Prem Mishra as well as Amrapali Builders
      and this fact has also been suppressed from the Hon’ble Supreme
      Court of India. Thus, the objections of the Prem Mishra, merely
H     on the basis of said MOU are not sustainable and he cannot be
  BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                247
             [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI]

      presumed become owner of the said property and no substantive               A
      right, title, and interest, in the said portion is created in his favour.
      Therefore, the said area shown in ‘Yellow’ colour i.e. measuring
      about 5,66,799sq. ft. still exists in the name of Amrapali.
      In this regard, necessary permission has to be sought from the
      Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to sell the said area as well.               B
      Accordingly, a request letter be placed before the Hon’ble
      Supreme Court, for granting permission to sell the said area.
      Registry is directed to issue letters accordingly. Mere MOU does
      not create any substantive right in favour of Prem Mishra to be
      the owner with respect to the said property shown in ‘Yellow’
      colour in the site map.”                                                    C

       5. It is in pursuance of the concluding part of the above proceedings
that the matter is before us.
      I.A. No. 74385 of 2020
      6. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the same                D
applicant seeking following directions: -
      a. “Kindly direct the Ld. Officer of DRT-III, Delhi to make
         necessary changes in the area of green color area which
         wrongly included area received for development of colony (i.e.
         12.71 bigha of farmer land and 7125 sq.ft. of additional land)           E
      b. Provide all rights of ownership of the yellow color area i.e.
         40% (6,10,649 sq.ft.) in favour of the applicant.
      c. Kindly direct the Ld. DRT-III to provide 40% of the profit
         share to the applicant.”
                                                                                  F
       7. According to the applicant, he holds 40% of the ‘yellow’ area
in the concerned colony of Indore with all rights of selling, receiving
amounts and right to execute the appropriate deeds of conveyance. The
applicant adverts to certain transactions entered into with respect to
said project at Indore and then submits as under: -
                                                                                  G
      “15. That in a case registered against the Amrapali Group i.e.
      Bikram Chatterji & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. This Hon’ble
      Court vide its order dated 12.09.2018 had directed the Debts
      Recovery Tribunal – III, Delhi to auction the properties of only
      Amrapali Groups and had marked 12,00,000 sq.ft. approximately
                                                                                  H
248      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 9 S.C.R.


A     belonging to Amrapali Homes Projects Pvt. Ltd. at Indore. This
      Hon’ble Court had also forwarded the map provided by the
      Amrapali to this Hon’ble Court to the Officer of DRT- III, Delhi
      wherein the property of Amrapali admeasuring 12,00,000 sq.ft.
      was shown in green color and property of the applicant admeasuring
      6,10,649 sq.ft. area was shown in yellow color. A true copy of the
B
      order dated 12.09.2018 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ
      Petition (C)No.940/2017 is annexed herewith and marked as
      Annexure A/5 (page 33 to 45).
      16. That thereafter the applicant moved I.A. No. 4/2018 dated
      27.10.2018 before the DRT-III, Delhi to attach only the green
C     area, measuring 12,00,000 sq.ft (including the M Red Area in the
      map measuring 3,34,455 sq.ft.) which the Amrapali owned as
      part of 60% profit sharing.
      17. That the Officer of DRT-III, Delhi failed to comply with the
      directions passed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 12.09.2018
D     and erroneously included the property of the applicant admeasuring
      6,10,649 sq.ft. for the purpose of selling out assets of the group.
      18. That the tribunal vide its order dated 11.12.2018 dismissed the
      applicant’s request to attach only the area in green, which was
      the property of Amrapali, as per the direction of this Hon’ble Court.
E     The applicant’s submission that the area shown in yellow rightfully
      belongs to the applicant as per MOU signed between the applicant
      and the Directors of M/s.. Amrapali Homes Pvt. Ltd. dated
      14.10.2009 and 18.01.2017 was disregarded and the Tribunal on
      erroneous findings attached both the yellow area and green area.
F     It is most respectfully submitted that the Tribunal in doing so clearly
      went beyond its jurisdiction adding the yellow area of the applicant
      measuring 6,10,649 sq.ft. to the green area measuring 12,00,000
      sq.ft. whereas this Hon’ble Court in its order dated 12.09.2018
      had mentioned only 12,00,000 sq.ft. as per the property of Amrapali
      Group. A true copy of the order dated 11.12.2018 made by
G     Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Delhi is annexed herewith and marked
      as Annexure A/6.
      19. That being aggrieved with the order dated 11.12.2018 applicant
      approached this Hon’ble Court and filed I.A. No. 8260/2019 dated
      14.01.2019 and the same is still pending for the kind consideration
H
     BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                               249
                [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI]

         of this Hon’ble Court. A true copy of the I.A. No. 8260/2019               A
         dated 14.01.2019 made by the applicant before this Hon’ble Court
         is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A/7.
         20. That in furtherance after receiving the information or intimation
         about the auction of Amrapali part area of Indore colony by the
         Ld. DRT Officer some of the residents/buyers of Indore Colony              B
         filed I.A. No.3/2019 to I.A.No.41/2019 before Ld. DRT Tribunal.
         In fact, the residents and buyers were having interest and as they
         have purchased their residential units in Amrapali Project situated
         at Indore, they have taken huge sums of money in shape of home
         loan, they were also under dire financial stress, therefore, they
         have prayed before the Tribunal to allow the intervention application      C
         and further sought the relief to appoint a capable developer for
         completion of the entire remaining work of the project.”
       8. The applicant then submits that the DRT officer had put said
property to auction having distress value of Rs.95 crores. According to
the applicant, all rights of ownership in the area mentioned in ‘yellow’            D
admeasuring about 6,10,649 square feet constituting 40% must be provided
in favour of the applicant.
      9. Some of the developments which occurred during the pendency
of these applications must now be adverted to.
                                                                                    E
         A.     On 23.7.2019, this Court delivered its judgment reported in
                Bikram Chatterji & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.2 The
                matter pertaining to Indore project was considered by this
                Court at page 248 of SCC report and in paragraph 155 it
                was stated that in view of the findings rendered by the
                forensic auditors, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and             F
                other authorities should investigate and fix liability on persons
                responsible for violation. Soon thereafter, a supplementary
                report dated 10.10.2019 was filed by the forensic auditors
                which summed up that Rs.10.26 crores were recoverable
                from Mr. Prem Mishra with respect to his concern in the             G
                Amrapali Colony project at Indore.
         B.     On 15.9.2020, Mr. Prem Mishra raised objections against
                the findings of this Court dated 23.7.2019.

2
    (2019) 9 SCC 161                                                                H
250        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 9 S.C.R.


A     C.     Based on the forensic auditors’ report, Mr. M.L. Lahoty,
             learned counsel representing the cause of homebuyers, in
             his note dated 29.10.2020, submitted as under: -
                “i. The Supplementary Report-II of the Forensic Audit
                (Pages 2961-2978) reveals misdeeds and
B               misappropriation of Crores of Rupees by Prem Mishra
                who even during the pendency of proceedings before
                this Hon’ble Court has continued to sell the Plots and
                received huge payment. According to the Report, the
                Companies were created for diversion of funds from
                NOIDA Projects and therefore the unsold inventory as
C               also the Bank accounts need to be attached by this
                Hon’ble Court and necessary recoveries be directed.
                The Projects indicated in the Report are as under:
                ii. Amrapali Homes Project Private Limited: The first
                Project namely, Amrapali House Modern City Projects
D               in Mhow (District Indore) was launched by Anil Kumar
                Sharma and Shiv Priya in partnership with Prem Mishra
                with Mahendra Singh Dhoni as Brand Ambassador.
                According to the Report, a total area of 49,500 sq. ft.
                was allotted to the family members of Prem Mishra
E               without receipt of any funds. Further, units admeasuring
                1,295 sq. ft. units with Registry Value of Rs.84.55 Crores
                (approx.) were sold and 302 plots were mortgaged to
                the Government. That apart there are unsold units
                admeasuring total area of 15,77,870 sq. ft.

F               iii. Nipunj Infrastructure Private Limited: The Project
                Maa Vindhyawasini Township is situated in Gram
                Bhaktkedi (District Indore) and was launched as Amrapali
                Group Project with Mahendra Singh Dhoni as brand
                Ambassador. There are total 138 plots out of which 97
                plots are sold and 41 plots are unsold. This company has
G               also mortgaged five residential cum commercial plots to
                the Government.
                iv. Vindhyawasini Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd.: The
                Project Maa Vindhyawasini Township at Manawar
                (District Indore) was launched as Amrapali Group Project
H               with Mahendra Singh Dhoni as Brand Ambassador and
BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                        251
           [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI]

          out of a total of 266 plots, 131 plots were sold and 135      A
          plots are unsold. Further the company has also mortgaged
          102 plots to the Municipal Corporation Manawar.
          v. Maa Vindhyawasini Dream City: This Project was
          also launched as Amrapali Group Project with Mahendra
          Singh Dhoni as Brand Ambassador at Ratlam. There              B
          are a total of 1,192 plots out of which 263 plots are sold
          while 929 plots remain unsold. That apart 265 plots have
          been mortgaged to the Government.
          vi. Mishra & Mishra Realty Pvt. Ltd. - As per the Report,
          no details have been made available of this Project to        C
          the Forensic Auditors, though there are Two Directors
          and Promotor Shareholders having equal percentage of
          shares namely, (i) Prem Mishra, and (ii) Mayank Mishra.
          vii. So far as Prem Mishra is concerned, this Hon’ble
          Court has already recorded that an amount of Rs.10            D
          Crores is recoverable from him. (Judgment pages 87
          & 193 as also the Supplementary Forensic Audit Report
          page 2966).”
  D.   After perusal of the note and considering submissions made
       on behalf of Mr. Prem Mishra, this Court by its order dated      E
       2.11.2020, directed the ED to file an appropriate response
       since by that time the investigation had commenced against
       Mr. Prem Mishra. Accordingly, status report dated
       18.11.2020 was submitted by the ED stating inter alia; that
       initial investment in the Indore project made by Mr. Prem
       Mishra was to the tune of Rs.3.5 crores while Rs.21 crores       F
       were invested by Amrapali Group of Companies for
       purchase of lands and that total money received from the
       homebuyers for Indore project was in the sum of Rs.18.95
       crores.
  E.   Subsequently, a further status report was filed by the ED        G
       on 4.1.2021. The learned counsel appearing for Mr.Prem
       Mishra sought time to respond to said status report. In the
       meantime, the matter was adjourned for six weeks to enable
       the ED to complete the investigation with following directions
       vide order dated 11.1.2021 passed by this Court: -
                                                                        H
252                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 9 S.C.R.


A              “a. The properties of all the aforesaid Corporate entities and those
               of Mr. Indra Bahadur Mishra sand Mr. Arvind Mishra and of Mr.
               prem Mishra, are kept under attachment and these Corporate
               entities as well as the individuals names hereinabove are restrained
               from dealing with or disposing of their properties, both movable
               and immovable.
B
               b. This ad-interim order shall not however preclude these Corporate
               entities and the individuals from defraying expenses for normal
               day to day affairs and necessary statutory dues.”
               F.     On 22.2.2021, a provisional attachment order under Section
C                     5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 20023
                      was passed by the ED holding that Mr. Prem Mishra and
                      his brother had siphoned of an amount of Rs.4,79,76,180
                      out of which Rs.79,52,500 pertained to his brothers and Mr.
                      Indra Bhushan Mishra and Mr. Arvind Mishra while
                      remaining Rs.4,00,23,680 pertained to Mr. Prem Mishra.
D                     On or about 28.8.2021, cognizance was taken by the Special
                      Judge in the matter.
               G.     In its order dated 13.9.2021, this Court recorded the
                      submissions of the learned counsel appearing for Mr. Prem
                      Mishra as under: -
E
                          “Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Advocate submits inter
                          alia:
                      a. Provisional Attachment Order No.01/2021 dated
                         22.02.2021 passed by the Enforcement Directorate
F                        has quantified the liability of Prem Mishra to the tune
                         of Rs.4,79,76,180/-. This provisional order has now been
                         confirmed by the Prescribed Authority. Therefore, the
                         attachment effected in terms of the Order dated
                         11.01.2021 passed by this Court may suitably be modified.
                      b. Considering the nature of circumstances, the entire
G
                         exercise be undertaken in this Court rather than relegating
                         Mr. Prem Mishra to the proceedings before the PMLA
                         Authorities.”

      3
          “PML Act”, for short
H
  BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                             253
             [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI]

             The Court also directed the forensic auditors to submit report    A
      on or before 20.9.2021. According to the report submitted by the
      forensic auditors, apart from sum of Rs.10.26 crores, a further
      additional sum of Rs.2.31 crores was due on certain counts.
      H.     The note prepared by forensic auditors was directed to be
             circulated to all parties vide order dated 20.9.2021 passed       B
             by this Court. In its response pursuant to said order dated
             20.9.2021, it was submitted on behalf of ED that permission
             be granted to the ED to have further attachment in respect
             of an amount of Rs.70,51,063 lakhs from the properties of
             Mr. Prem Mishra. The supplementary note was thereafter
             filed by the ED on 28.10.2021. The adjudicating authority         C
             passed final order on 28.12.2021 confirming the provisional
             attachment order dated 22.2.2021 and observed that the
             extent of funds siphoned of were to the tune of
             Rs.4,79,76,180.
       10. In these circumstances, what is presently submitted on behalf       D
of Mr. Prem Mishra 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 of Mr. Prem Mishra and
his brothers.
        11. There are two divergent views which are emanating from the         E
record. According to the forensic auditors, the liability of Mr. Prem Mishra
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 Mr. Prem Mishra were to the tune of Rs.4,79,76,180 only. But at the
root of the entire controversy is the question whether Mr. Prem Mishra         F
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           G
of pendency of proceedings in this Court. There is thus no concrete and
final determination with regard to the rights of Mr. Prem Mishra 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             H
254              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 9 S.C.R.


A     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 Mr. Prem Mishra. His entitlement is yet to be
B
      pronounced upon.
             12. In the circumstances, the prayer made by Mr. Prem Mishra
      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. We, therefore, reject the
C     prayer for release of attachment as mentioned above and direct that
      these two Interlocutory Applications be listed and considered at an early
      date.

      Ankit Gyan                                                Directions issued.
D     (Assisted by : Rahul Rathi, LCRA)




E




F




G




H