Kerala High Court
Partner Lease Ood, A Limited Liability ... vs Deputy Director, Directorate Of ... on 1 April, 2025
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
Crl.M.C.No.1689/24
1
2025:KER:32561
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 1689 OF 2024
CRIME NO.ECIR No.KC20/05/2016 OF ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
KOCHI, Ernakulam
PETITIONER:
PARTNER LEASE OOD, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF REPUBLIC OF
BULGARIA,
THR. ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
MR. VESSELIN POPOVSKI,HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
FL. 2, AP. 8, 1233, STR. KOZLODUY 94,
CITY OF SOFIA,
REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA, PIN - 682018
BY ADV SOURADH C. VALSON
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
KANOOS CASTLE, A.K. SESHADRI ROAD,
COCHIN, PIN - 682011
Crl.M.C.No.1689/24
2
2025:KER:32561
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
3 SMT. BEENA JOSE, W/O [LATE] SH. JOSE GEORGE,
AGED 53 YEARS
VILLA NO. 1A, GOLDEN DEW VILLAS,
VENNALA HIGH SCHOOL ROAD,
VENNALA P.O.,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682028
4 SMT. ANN LINDA JOSE, D/O [LATE] SH. JOSE GEORGE,
AGED 35 YEARS
VILLA NO. 1A, GOLDEN DEW VILLAS,
VENNALA HIGH SCHOOL ROAD,VENNALA P.O.
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682028
BY ADV SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. GUNEET SIDHU FOR THE PETITIONER.
SRI. JAISHANKAR SC FOR ED. SRI. A.R.L SUNDARESAN
FOR ADGP OF INDIA. SRI. M.C. ASHI, PP.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.03.2025, THE COURT ON 01.04.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.1689/24
3
2025:KER:32561
V.G.ARUN, J
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Crl.M.C.No.1689 of 2024
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 1st day of April, 2025
ORDER
The challenge in this Crl.M.C is against Annexure A order of the Special Court for Trial of PMLA Cases, Ernakulam rejecting the petition filed in S.C.No.653 of 2018, seeking restoration of the properties attached under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('the PMLA' for Short). Shorn of unnecessary details, the essential facts are as under;
During April-May, 2016, M/s. Trade International, Kochi, the proprietorship concern of one Jose George, and M/s.Zvezda AD, Bulgaria entered into four commercial agreements for the export of crude sunflower oil, refined sunflower oil and sugar. As per the terms of the agreements, the goods were to be Crl.M.C.No.1689/24 4 2025:KER:32561 exported by M/s.Trade International and payment for the goods thus exported was to be effected by M/s.Zvezda AD. The payment by M/s.Zvezda AD was guaranteed by UniCredit Bulbank, a Bulgarian entity, by issuing seven Standby Letters of Credit (SBLC) in favour of M/s.Trade International. The SBLCs covering the purchase amount were thus issued to the State Bank of India, the advising bank in the seller's country. A portion of the amount covered by the SBLCs was credited to the account of M/s.Trade International through the advising bank. The payments under the remaining SBLCs were withheld by the State Bank of India, since the documents produced by M/s.Trade International to prove shipment of the consignments were suspected to be forged. Subsequent enquiry revealed that M/s.Trade International had not shipped even a single consignment covered by the agreements to the buyer. Therefore, the Enforcement Officer in the Directorate of Enforcement lodged an FIR at the Harbour Police Station stating that approximately Rs.55 Crores was transferred by Crl.M.C.No.1689/24 5 2025:KER:32561 M/s.Zvezda AD to the State Bank of India, out of which Rs.25 crores was diverted to various bank accounts of Jose George and his relatives. Thereupon, Crime No.1343 of 2016 was registered at the Harbour Police Station against Jose George on 16.11.2016, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC. As the offences for which the crime was registered included scheduled offences under the PMLA, ECIR/KCZO/5/2016 was registered by the Enforcement Directorate ('ED' for short) on 29.12.2016. Thereafter, on 07.02.2017, an order under Section 5 of PMLA was issued by the Deputy Director of the Enforcement Directorate, provisionally attaching Rs.28,09,75,843.60 lying in the bank accounts of Jose George, his wife Beena Jose and daughter Ann Linda Jose. By the same order, another sum of USD 42,12,440/- (Approximately Rs.34.96 crores) lying with the State Bank of India was also attached. The provisional order was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority on 18.07.2017, subject to the same becoming final by the order of confiscation Crl.M.C.No.1689/24 6 2025:KER:32561 issued by the Special Court under Sections 8(5) or 8(7) of PMLA. While so, on 18.01.2018, Jose George, the sole accused in Crime No.1343 of 2016, died. Thereupon, the police submitted final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi on 01.02.2018, stating that the proceedings had abated by the death of the sole accused. Later, on 15.07.2018, the Enforcement Directorate filed a prosecution complaint against deceased Jose George, Beena Jose and Ann Linda Jose alleging commission of the offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. In the meanwhile, insolvency proceedings had been initiated against M/s.Zvezda MD by the UniCredit Bulbank before the Pleven District Court in Bulgaria and an Order of Determination was passed by that court on 14.01.2021. Pursuant to the order, the assets of M/s.Zvezda were brought to sale on 22.02.2021 and an entity named M/s.Finlease Capital AD, which had bid BGN 8154 (approximately Rs.3,82,993) for the accounts receivable of M/s.Zvezda, was declared the purchaser by order dated Crl.M.C.No.1689/24 7 2025:KER:32561 18.03.2021 of the Pleven District Court. Thereafter, on 27.04.2021, an agreement regarding transfer of receivables was executed between M/s.Finlease AD, the purchaser and M/s.Partner Lease OOD, the petitioner herein. By the agreement, M/s.Finlease AD sold the receivables claimed against M/s.Trade International, arising out of the four concluded agreements for supply of sugar and sunflower oil under which seven letters of credit had been drawn for BGN 9000 (approximately Rs.4,22,730/-). On the strength of the agreement, the petitioner approached the Special Court seeking release of the amount under attachment, by filing a petition under Section 8(8) of the PMLA. The Special Court having dismissed the petition, this Crl.M.C. is filed seeking the following reliefs;
"(A) quash the entire proceedings emanating from ECIR No. KCZO/5/2016 and consequentially, restore the Attached Monies (as defined hereinabove) to the Petitioner; or (B) alternatively and without prejudice to the foregoing prayer, set aside the Impugned Order passed by the Hon'ble Special Court for the Crl.M.C.No.1689/24 8 2025:KER:32561 trial of PMLA Cases, at Ernakulam in Crl. M.P. No.7 of 2022 in S.C. No. 653 of 2018 and direct restoration of the Attached Monies [as defined hereinabove] to the Petitioner."
2. Heard, Adv. Guneet Sidhu for the petitioner and Addl. Solicitor General of India, Senior Advocate A.R.L.Sundaresan for the Enforcement Directorate.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner put forth the following arguments;
The attached moneys are the purchase consideration remitted by M/s. Zvezda MD to M/s. Trade International based on commercial agreements entered between the two entities. Alleging that M/s.Trade International had obtained the purchase consideration without actually exporting the goods, the ED had approached the police, resulting in registration of Crime No.1343 of 2016 at the Harbour Police Station against Jose George, the proprietor of M/s.Trade International. Pending investigation of that crime, Jose George died on 18.01.2018 and an abated charge sheet was filed before the jurisdictional Crl.M.C.No.1689/24 9 2025:KER:32561 Magistrate Court on 01.02.2018. The prosecution complaint was filed before the Special Court only on 15.07.2018, by which time the scheduled offence had ceased to exist due to the death of Mr.Jose George, the sole accused. Being so, the ED could not have continued the proceedings in the ECIR since, without the scheduled offence, there cannot be any proceeds of crime and in the absence of proceeds of crime, no person can be prosecuted for the offence of money laundering. The concept of abatement is equivalent to acquittal and the presumption of innocence of the accused will not vaporize on his death. Legal support for the argument is sought to be drawn from the decisions of the Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of India and Others [(2023) 12 SCC 1] and U.Subhadramma & others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another [(2016) 7 SCC 797].
4. Alternatively it is contended that, even if the further proceedings are maintainable, the petition under Section 8(8) of PMLA ought to be allowed, since the petitioner falls within Crl.M.C.No.1689/24 10 2025:KER:32561 the meaning of 'claimant' under Rule 2(b) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Restoration of Property) Rules, 2016 ('the Restoration Rules' for short) and has legitimate interest over the attached monies. The documents on record amply demonstrates that the transaction between M/s.Zvezda M.D and M/s.Trade International was legitimate and that, M/s.Zvezda had taken all steps for getting refund of the amount deposited in the account of M/s.Trade International.
5. Countering the arguments, the learned Additional Solicitor General made the following submissions;
The proceedings under the PMLA would not abate with the death of the sole accused in the predicate offence, the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA being a stand alone offence. Moreover, abatement of criminal proceedings does not amount to acquittal and would not erase the foundational facts which had given rise to the prosecution under another enactment. Here, the foundational facts remain the same and the prosecution under Section 3 against the remaining accused Crl.M.C.No.1689/24 11 2025:KER:32561 can be continued irrespective of the death of the first accused. If the contention of the petitioner that the proceedings under the PMLA cannot be continued is accepted, then the petition under Section 8(8) of the PMLA is also not maintainable, since the finding of commission of the offence of money laundering is sine qua non for restoration of the attached property. Section 8(8) and its second proviso are beneficial provisions intended to mitigate the losses that might have been suffered by a person on account of the offence of money laundering. Therefore, only persons who had interest in the attached property prior to the offence of money laundering and who have suffered on account of the commission of the offence can seek restoration of the attached property. The petitioner did not suffer any quantifiable loss due to the offence of money laundering, but had voluntarily purchased a litigious asset. The consideration paid while purchasing the actionable claim is about Rs.3.5 lakhs, whereas restoration is sought of Rs.65 Crores. Moreover, the order of the Pleven District Court is only for Crl.M.C.No.1689/24 12 2025:KER:32561 transfer/sale of the receivables from the accused in the predicate offence and is not a decree for payment of money. Even otherwise, since Bulgaria is not a reciprocating country under Section 44A of CPC, the claim petition based on the order of the Bulgarian Court is not maintainable. It is pertinent to note that under the corresponding Rules, publication of 30 days notice is mandatory to consider the prayer for restoration.
6. The first contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that, the sole accused in the predicate offence having died and an abated final report filed, the prosecution for the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA cannot be continued. Legal support for the contention is sought to be drawn from paragraph 382.8 of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), wherein the Apex Court has held that if a person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence, or the criminal case against him quashed by the court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence of money laundering against him or anyone claiming through him. In this context it Crl.M.C.No.1689/24 13 2025:KER:32561 is essential to note that in the same decision, the Apex Court found Section 3 of PMLA to be a stand-alone offence. The contextually relevant paragraph of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary reads as under;
"134. From the bare language of Section 3 of the 2002 Act, it is amply clear that the offence of money laundering is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence. The process or activity can be in any form -- be it one of concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so. Thus, involvement in any one of such process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime would constitute offence of money laundering. This offence otherwise has nothing to do with the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence -- except the proceeds of crime derived or obtained as a result of that crime."
(underline supplied)
7. The following findings in Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement [(2023) 15 SCC 91] provide further clarity to the legal position;
Crl.M.C.No.1689/2414
2025:KER:32561 "17. Coming back to Section 3 PMLA, on its plain reading, an offence under Section 3 can be committed after a scheduled offence is committed. For example, let us take the case of a person who is unconnected with the scheduled offence, knowingly assists the concealment of the proceeds of crime or knowingly assists the use of proceeds of crime. In that case, he can be held guilty of committing an offence under Section 3 PMLA. To give a concrete example, the offences under Sections 384 to 389 IPC relating to "extortion" are scheduled offences included in Para 1 of the Schedule to PMLA. An accused may commit a crime of extortion covered by Sections 384 to 389 IPC and extort money. Subsequently, a person unconnected with the offence of extortion may assist the said accused in the concealment of the proceeds of extortion. In such a case, the person who assists the accused in the scheduled offence for concealing the proceeds of the crime of extortion can be guilty of the offence of money-laundering. Therefore, it is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 PMLA is alleged must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled offence. What is held in para 135 of the decision of this Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] supports the above conclusion. The conditions precedent for attracting the offence under Section 3 PMLA are that there must be a scheduled offence and that there must be proceeds of crime in relation to the scheduled offence as defined in clause (u) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 PMLA.
18. In a given case, if the prosecution for the scheduled offence ends in the acquittal of all the accused or discharge of all the accused or the Crl.M.C.No.1689/24 15 2025:KER:32561 proceedings of the scheduled offence are quashed in its entirety, the scheduled offence will not exist, and therefore, no one can be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 3 PMLA as there will not be any proceeds of crime. Thus, in such a case, the accused against whom the complaint under Section 3 PMLA is filed will benefit from the scheduled offence ending by acquittal or discharge of all the accused. Similarly, he will get the benefit of quashing the proceedings of the scheduled offence. However, an accused in PMLA case who comes into the picture after the scheduled offence is committed by assisting in the concealment or use of proceeds of crime need not be an accused in the scheduled offence. Such an accused can still be prosecuted under PMLA so long as the scheduled offence exists. Thus, the second contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant on the ground that the appellant was not shown as an accused in the charge-sheets filed in the scheduled offences deserves to be rejected."
(underline supplied)
7. Referring to the above precedents, this Court in the judgment dated 24.03.2025 in Dharmaraj Rasalam A. v. Assistant Director, Directorate Of Enforcement [2025 KHC 378] has held that a person, whose name was included in the FIR registered for the scheduled offence, but omitted in the final report can also be prosecuted under the PMLA, if he is Crl.M.C.No.1689/24 16 2025:KER:32561 suspected to be involved in the concealment or use of the proceeds of crime. Thus, the allegation regarding a person's involvement in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime can subsist independently, even if his involvement in generation of the funds, i.e., proceeds of crime, is not proved. In the case at hand, even though only Jose George was made accused in the predicate offence, his wife and daughter are arrayed as accused in the prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate, alleging their involvement in the processes or activities connected with the proceeds of crime. In the light of such an allegation, prosecution for the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA can be continued against them. As the proceedings under Section 3 are found to be maintainable, the question whether abatement of the offence upon death of the accused is equivalent to acquittal or not, has lost its relevance.
8. The other contention is with respect to the petitioner's right to get the attached amount released. Here, it is pertinent Crl.M.C.No.1689/24 17 2025:KER:32561 to note that, going by the scheme of the PMLA, if, on conclusion of the trial of an offence under the Act, the Special Court finds that the offence of money-laundering has been committed, the property involved in the money-laundering shall stand confiscated to the Central Government. If, on the other hand, the court finds that the offence of money-laundering had not taken place or the property is not involved in money- laundering, the property shall then be released to the person entitled to receive it. An exception to the above procedure is carved out by Sub-section 8 of Section 8, providing for consideration of claim for restoration of the confiscated property by a third party. Being of relevance, Section 8(8) is extracted below;
" 8.Adjudication.
xxx xxx (8) Where a property stands confiscated to the Central Government under sub-section (5), the Special Court, in such manner as may be prescribed, may also direct the Central Government to restore such confiscated property or Crl.M.C.No.1689/24 18 2025:KER:32561 part thereof of a claimant with a legitimate interest in the property, who may have suffered a quantifiable loss as a result of the offence of money laundering:
Provided that the Special Court shall not consider such claim unless it is satisfied that the claimant has acted in good faith and has suffered the loss despite having taken all reasonable precautions and is not involved in the offence of money laundering :
Provided further that the Special Court may, if it thinks fit, consider the claim of the claimant for the purposes of restoration of such properties during the trial of the case in such manner as may be prescribed."
9. In the case at hand, we are concerned with the 2 nd proviso, as the trial of the case has not commenced. A close scrutiny of the above provision reveals that, for a third party's claim to be maintainable, he should have legitimate interest in the property and should have suffered quantifiable loss as a result of the offence of money-laundering, in spite of having taken all reasonable precautions. Further, the claimant should have acted in good faith and should not be involved in the Crl.M.C.No.1689/24 19 2025:KER:32561 offence of money-laundering. In the case at hand, the petitioner's claim is based on the order of a Bulgarian court, assigning the right to the receivables arising out of the non- performance of the commercial contracts by M/s.Trade International. Here, it is pertinent to note that the claim under Section 8 of the PMLA is maintainable only at the instance of a person who has suffered a quantifiable loss as a result of the offence of money-laundering. The trade loss suffered by M/s.Zvezda due to the failure on the part of M/s.Trade International to abide by its commitment, cannot be treated as the quantifiable loss suffered by the assignee of the receivables. Being so, the purchaser of the right to realise the receivables from the assignee, will not fall within the meaning of the term 'claimant' as defined in Rule 2(b) of the Restoration Rules. Moreover, the order of the Bulgarian Court cannot be executed through Indian Courts, in the absence of a reciprocal treaty between India and Bulgaria.
Crl.M.C.No.1689/2420
2025:KER:32561
10. As contended by the learned ASGI, even in a case where the claim under Section 8(8) is found to be entertainable, the procedure prescribed in Rule 3A(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Restoration of property) Rules, 2016 has to be followed. As it is already found that the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of 'claimant' under Rule 2(b) of the Restoration Rules, the question of issuance of notice in accordance with Rule 3A(1) does not arise.
The above discussion leads to the definite conclusion that the well considered order of the Special Court warrants no interference. In the result, the Crl.M.C is dismissed.
sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE sj Crl.M.C.No.1689/24 21 2025:KER:32561 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1689/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A A COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.11.2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF PMLA CASES, AT ERNAKULAM IN CLAIM PETITION BEARING CRL. M.P. NO. 7 OF 2022 IN S.C. NO. 653 OF 2018.
Annexure B (Colly) A COPIES OF THE CONTRACTS EXECUTED BETWEEN ZVEZDA AND TRADE INTERNATIONAL.
Annexure C (Colly) A COPY OF THE INVOICE, BILL OF LADING, INSURANCE POLICY AND BENEFICIARY DECLARATION ISSUED BY M/S TRADE INTERNATIONAL IN RESPECT OF SBLC NO. 1 Annexure D (Colly) A COPY OF THE INVOICE, BILL OF LADING, INSURANCE POLICY AND BENEFICIARY DECLARATION ISSUED BY M/S TRADE INTERNATIONAL IN RESPECT OF SBLC NO. 2 Annexure E (Colly) A COPY OF THE INVOICE, BILL OF LADING, INSURANCE POLICY AND BENEFICIARY DECLARATION ISSUED BY M/S TRADE INTERNATIONAL IN RESPECT OF SBLC NO. 3 Annexure F (Colly) A COPY OF THE INVOICE, BILL OF LADING, INSURANCE POLICY AND BENEFICIARY DECLARATION ISSUED BY M/S TRADE INTERNATIONAL IN RESPECT OF SBLC NO. 4 Crl.M.C.No.1689/24 22 2025:KER:32561 Annexure G (Colly) A COPY OF THE INVOICE, BILL OF LADING, INSURANCE POLICY AND BENEFICIARY DECLARATION ISSUED BY M/S TRADE INTERNATIONAL IN RESPECT OF SBLC NO. 5 Annexure H (Colly) A COPY OF THE INVOICE, BILL OF LADING, INSURANCE POLICY AND BENEFICIARY DECLARATION ISSUED BY M/S TRADE INTERNATIONAL IN RESPECT OF SBLC NO. 6 Annexure I (Colly) A COPY OF THE INVOICE, BILL OF LADING, INSURANCE POLICY AND BENEFICIARY DECLARATION ISSUED BY M/S TRADE INTERNATIONAL IN RESPECT OF SBLC NO. 7 Annexure J A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.05.2016 SENT BY THE GREAT EXIM E-LOGISTICS GROUP TO ZVEZDA IS ENCLOSED.
Annexure K (Colly) A COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN ZVEZDA AND TRADE INTERNATIONAL.
Annexure L A COPY OF LETTER DATED 15.06.2016 SENT BY THE GREAT EXIM E-LOGISTICS GROUP TO ZVEZDA Annexure M A COPY OF THE SWIFT MESSAGE SENT BY SBI STATING THAT FUNDS CANNOT BE REMITTED TO ZVEZDA ON ACCOUNT OF BLOCKING OF FUNDS BY RESPONDENT NO. 1 Annexure N A COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE STATE BANK OF INDIA TO THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 DEMONSTRATING THAT THE MONIES WERE ATTACHED AS EARLY AS DATED 26.07.2016.
Crl.M.C.No.1689/24 23 2025:KER:32561 Annexure O A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.08.2016 WAS SENT BY MR. P. SUBHASH NAIR, HEAD OF CHANCERY, EMBASSY OF INDIA IN BULGARIA ON BEHALF OF ZVEZDA TO TRADE INTERNATIONAL. Annexure P A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.08.2016 SENT BY ZVEZDA AD TO THE HON'BLE RAJESH KUMAR SACHDEVA. Annexure Q A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.08.2016 ADDRESSED TO UNICREDIT ON BEHALF OF ZVEZDA. Annexure R A COPY OF FIR NO. 1343 OF 2016 REGISTERED AS DATED 16.11.2016 AT HARBOUR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM AT THE INSTANCE OF A COMPLAINT FILED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1. Annexure S A COPY OF ORDER DATED 12.08.2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF SESSION, ERNAKULAM DIVISION IN CRL MC NO. 1712 OF 2016. Annexure T A COPY OF THE REGISTERED ENFORCEMENT CASE INFORMATION REPORT ECIR DATED 29.12.2016. Annexure U A COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT ORDER DATED 7.02.2017 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1. Annexure V A COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY UNICREDIT SEEKING ZVEZDA'S INSOLVENCY DATED ON 16.02.2017 Crl.M.C.No.1689/24 24 2025:KER:32561 Annexure W A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.07.2017 PASSED BY THE LD. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY CONFIRMING THE PAO. Annexure X A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17.01.2018 SENT BY THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS. Annexure Y A COPY OF THE ABATED CHARGESHEET DATED 1.02.2018. Annexure Z A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2021 PASSED BY THE PLEVEN DISTRICT COURT IN BULGARIA ALONG WITH A TRANSLATED AND APOSTILLED COPY. Annexure AA A COPY OF THE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE CONTRACT DATED 27.04.2021. Annexure BB A COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER Annexure CC A COPY OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 1'S COUNTER STATEMENT FILED IN THE CLAIM PETITION. Annexure DD A COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER IN THE CLAIM PETITION. Annexure EE A COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE CLAIM PETITION. Annexure FF A COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE CLAIM PETITION. Crl.M.C.No.1689/24 25 2025:KER:32561 Annexure GG A COPY OF THE NOTE OF ARGUMENTS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 IN THE CLAIM PETITION. Annexure HH A COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET OF THE LD. (Colly) SPECIAL COURT. Annexure II A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.08.2023 SENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 Annexure JJ A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROSECUTION (Colly) COMPLAINT Annexure KK CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE RUDS ANNEXED TO (Colly) THE PROSECUTION COMPLAINT