M/S Adarsh Buildestate Limited & Ors vs Union Of India

Contempt Case (AT) No. 18 of 2021 in Comp. App. (AT) No. 267 & 278 to 308 of 2018

IN THE MATTER OF: Shyam Murari Nigam ...Appellant Versus Adarsh Buildestate Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent Present: For Appellant : Mr. M.K. Pandey, Mr. Ashwinee Singh, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Vivek Gurnani, Satyam, Vivek Gaurav, Adv.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

10.12.2025 Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant as well as Ld. Counsel

for the Respondent and perused the record.

2. The instant application has been moved by the Applicant to correct

certain mistakes which appears to have been inadvertently occurred in the

order dated 18.11.2025 passed in Contempt Case (AT) No. 18 of 2021.

3. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and keeping in view all the

facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by Ld. Counsel

for the parties, the instant correction application is finally disposed of in

terms that in 3rd line of paragraph no. 6 after "Adarsh Buildestate Ltd." the

words "alongwith 32 group companies" would be added and likewise in first

line of paragraph 12 the amount of "Rs. 15 lakhs" shall now be read as "21

lakhs" as well as in second line of this paragraph "Rs. 1 Cr. 7 Lakhs" shall

now be read as "Rs. 1 Cr. 65 Lakhs" and in last line of paragraph no. 12

word "requested" be read as "remained" and therefore after such corrections, the order dated 18.11.2025 passed in Contempt Case (AT) No. 18

of 2021 shall now be read as under:-

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

Contempt Case (AT) No. 18 of 2021 In Comp. App. (AT) No. 267 & 278 to 308 of 2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

Shyam Murari Nigam ...Applicant(s)

Versus

Adarsh Buildestate Ltd. & Ors. ...Contemnor(s) /Respondent(s) Present:

For Applicant(s) Dr.: M.K. Pandey, Mr. Neeraj Kr. Sharma, Mr. Ashweeni Singh, Advocates.

For Mr. : Arnav Kumar with Mr. Keshav Mittal, Contemnor(s)/ Advocates for UOI/SFIO. Respondent(s) Mr. JP Rawat for RP. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel ED. Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel ED. Mr. Satyam, Advocate.

ORDER (Hybrid Mode)

18.11.2025: Heard Ld. Counsel for the applicant as well as Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 4 i.e. Enforcement Directorate and perused the record.

2. During the course of deliberations, it is surfaced that an application was moved by the instant applicant before the adjudicating authority in proceedings of PAO no. 09/JPZO/2019 whereby upon an order of date 12.02.2020 was passed whereby the application moved by the applicant was disposed of. Relevant portion of that order which has also been quoted in the counter-

affidavit filed by the Directorate of Enforcement is produced as under:

"... In the case of the interveners including petition of Executive Officer appointed in Adarsh Buildestate Ltd. (Adarsh Group Cases) by the Honourable NCLAT, in view of the material brought on record by the complainant no relief can be granted at this stage. The applicant can claim its legitimate due in terms of section 8(8) of PMLA before the Special Court under PMLA, which provides for restoration of confiscated properties to the persons, who had a legitimate interest in the property. I agree that the matter of remuneration of the Executive Officer is between the company and the officer and the company is duty bound to pay the remuneration to the executive officer, appointed by NCLAT out of its source of income. The functioning of the company has not been stopped by the complainant department and by the act of provisional attachment, only the diversion of funds identified as proceeds of crime have been protected. The request of the applicant for directing the company to pay the remuneration or release the funds out of the attached bank account cannot be acceded to, as none of the provisions of PMLA provides for such permission once the attached amount has been held to be a part of the proceeds of crime".

3. The submission of the Ld. Counsel for the ED is that since the applicant herein had approached the adjudicating authority by moving an application and the same has been disposed of by specifically mentioning that the relief lies in moving an application before the special court in terms of Section 8(8) of the PMLA, the application in compliance of the same should have been moved by the applicant before special court.

4. It is further submitted that the applicant has not challenged the aforesaid order at any higher forum therefore the same has become final and absolute so far as the applicant is concerned.

5. Our attention was also drawn towards Section 8(8) of the PMLA in order to show that the vigour of this proviso is not limited only to sub-section 8 and the same has been interpreted by the higher courts in a way that an interim application may also be moved under this proviso during the course of trial and it is not restricted to the stage of conclusion of trial by the special court. Thus the applicant must approach the special court.

6. Ld. Counsel for the applicant on the other hand submits that he was appointed by this appellate tribunal as executive officer of the Adarsh Buildestate Ltd. alongwith 32 group companies with the consent of Union of India and his remuneration was fixed as Rs. 2,50,000/- per month along with other facilities.

7. It is further submitted that he was appointed on 04.10.2018 and was discharged by this tribunal on 08.01.2025 and his fee of this period, which comes to about Rs. 1 Crore 65 lakhs, has not been paid yet.

8. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. It appears to be an admitted situation that vide order 04.10.2018, the applicant herein was appointed by this tribunal, as the executive officer of the Adarsh Buildestate Ltd. with the consent of Union of India to supervise the 32 companies pertaining to which certain allegations of oppression and mismanagement were levelled.

10. It is also not in dispute that the remuneration of the applicant was fixed as Rs. 2,50,000/- per month along with other perks.

11. It is also not disputable that he was appointed vide order dated 04.10.2018 and was ultimately discharged vide order dated 08.01.2025.

12. It is also admitted to the applicant that about Rs. 21 lakhs so far has been paid to him, however, fee to the tune of Rs. 1 Crore 65 lakhs is still remained to be paid to the applicant.

13. It is also not in dispute that the applicant herein had approached the adjudicating authority by moving an application which has been disposed of on 12.02.2020 the relevant portion of that order has already been quoted herein before, whereby the applicant was observed that applicant can claim its legitimate due in terms of Section 8(8) of the PMLA before the special court.

14. Thus, it is evident that the applicant was directed vide order 12.02.2020 passed by the adjudicating authority to approach the special court by moving an appropriate application in terms of Section 8(8) of the PMLA. It is also not in dispute that this order has not been challenged by the applicant. Thus without entering into the merits and demerits of the case we are of considered view that an application, before the special court under Section 8(8) of the PMLA should have been moved by the applicant.

15. Thus we expect that such an application would now be moved by the applicant at the earliest and if such an application is moved we also expect that the same shall be taken to its logical conclusion by the special court constituted under PMLA strictly in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties.

16. List this application on 21.01.2026.

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) sr/ss

4. With the aforesaid correction, the correction application is finally

disposed of.

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

Sheetal/SS