Mumbai: Dalmia Cement has received a major legal relief. The PMLA appellate tribunal has reduced the alleged “proceeds of crime” (POC) in an Enforcement Directorate case from ₹793.34 crore to ₹92.52 crore. This is seen as an important development for the company.
Setback for ED’s Claims
The case is linked to action taken by the Enforcement Directorate, which had earlier attached assets worth ₹377 crore of the company. Dalmia Cement had challenged this action.
With the tribunal’s latest order, the ED’s claim of a much larger illegal gain has been partially rejected, giving relief to the company.
Background of the Case
The case goes back to a 2011 investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. It involved alleged investments linked to Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh.
The ED had alleged that Dalmia Cement invested ₹95 crore in Bharati Cements at a higher premium. In return, the company allegedly received benefits like limestone mining leases.
According to ED, these benefits led to gains of around ₹709 crore, which were treated as “proceeds of crime.”
Questions Over Share Sale Deals
The ED also examined the sale of shares of Bharati Cements to French firm PARFICIM SAS for ₹139 crore. It claimed that around ₹55 crore was routed back through cash and hawala channels, while ₹84 crore remained with the company.
This transaction was a key part of the investigation.
What the Tribunal Said
The tribunal, led by member V. Anandarajan, made an important observation. It said that ₹84 crore earned from share sales cannot be treated as “proceeds of crime.”
After this, the total alleged amount was reduced significantly to ₹92.52 crore.
Why This Matters?
This decision is important because it reduces the financial scope of allegations against the company. It also weakens the ED’s earlier claims of large illegal gains and may help the company in its future legal strategy.
Company’s Response and What Next
The company has not given a detailed response, saying the matter is sub judice. The case is not fully closed, and the ED may challenge the order in higher courts.
