Vacation of attachment order - PMLA attachment - withdrawal with liberty to file afresh - appearance of Government AuthorityVacation of attachment order - PMLA attachment - withdrawal with liberty to file afresh - Application by the Resolution Professional seeking vacation of the attachment order passed under PMLA dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh upon successful appeal. - HELD THAT: - The Resolution Professional's application for vacation of the attachment order under the PMLA was dismissed as withdrawn because the Resolution Professional's counsel expressly reported that the RP had no objection to withdrawal. The Bench noted that an appeal against the attachment order was pending before the Appellate Tribunal and observed that continued appearances by the Enforcement Directorate before this Bench would serve no purpose. In view of these circumstances the Bench declined to adjudicate the application on merits and granted liberty to the Resolution Professional to present the same cause of action again before this Bench if the appeal is allowed by the Appellate Tribunal.Application dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh if the pending appeal against the attachment order is allowed.Final Conclusion: The application for vacation of the PMLA attachment was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal; the Resolution Professional is granted liberty to refile the application before this Bench in the event the pending appeal against the attachment order is allowed.

Moratorium under Section 14(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - overriding effect of Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 vis-a -vis proceedings under the IBC - resolution professional's right to take control and custody of assets under Section 18(1)(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - ousting of civil jurisdiction by Section 63 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016Moratorium under Section 14(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - overriding effect of Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - ousting of civil jurisdiction by Section 63 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - resolution professional's right to take control and custody of assets under Section 18(1)(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Validity and effect of the Enforcement Directorate's provisional attachment orders dated 29.05.2018 and corrigendum dated 14.06.2018 over properties of the Corporate Debtor undergoing CIRP. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that the IBC's object of expeditious resolution and maximisation of asset value for stakeholders, together with the non obstante clause in Section 238, and the moratorium under Section 14(1)(a), operate to render the PMLA attachment orders in respect of the Corporate Debtor null and of no binding effect during CIRP. The bench accepted the view that proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA in respect of attached properties are civil in character and therefore fall within the prohibition created by the IBC moratorium and the ouster principle under Section 63. In consequence, the Resolution Professional is entitled to take control and custody of the Corporate Debtor's assets and to deal with them under the Code as if no attachment had been ordered. The Tribunal also noted the economic rationale-delay in criminal/PMLA proceedings would erode asset value and prejudice creditors-and observed that pursuing relief before the PMLA Adjudicating Authority would likely frustrate the timelines and purpose of CIRP. The order expressly limits its operation to attachments in respect of the Corporate Debtor's properties and does not decide the merits of any PMLA determination whether particular assets are proceeds of crime, which remains for the Special Court under PMLA to determine in appropriate proceedings. [Paras 8, 9]The attachment orders dated 29.05.2018 and corrigendum dated 14.06.2018 are a nullity in law insofar as they affect properties of the Corporate Debtor undergoing CIRP; the Resolution Professional may take charge of and deal with those assets under the IBC.Registration of lease deeds - resolution professional's right to take control and custody of assets under Section 18(1)(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Relief to direct the sub registrar at Jambusar to register and hand over two original lease deeds and to remove notations of attachment in respect of the Corporate Debtor's properties. - HELD THAT: - Acting on the conclusion that the PMLA attachment is without legal effect as to the Corporate Debtor's assets during CIRP, the Tribunal directed the concerned sub registrars to remove any notings of attachment and to register and hand over the two original lease deeds dated 28.08.2018 between the Corporate Debtor and P.I. Industries Ltd. The direction follows from the Tribunal's determination that the Resolution Professional must be permitted to take custody and possession of assets necessary for conducting CIRP in accordance with the Code. [Paras 10]The sub registrar at Jambusar is directed to register and hand over the two original lease deeds and to remove any notings of attachment in respect of the Corporate Debtor's properties.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the application: holding the PMLA provisional attachment and corrigendum in respect of the Corporate Debtor's properties to be void during CIRP by reason of the IBC's moratorium, overriding and ouster provisions, enabling the Resolution Professional to take possession and deal with the assets under the IBC, and directing registration and delivery of the two lease deeds; no costs.

Overriding effect of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC - bar on concurrent proceedings and jurisdictional exclusion under Section 63 of the IBC - resolution professional's right to take custody and control of assets under Section 18 of the IBC - nullity of attachment orders passed in breach of the IBC moratoriumMoratorium under Section 14 of the IBC - overriding effect of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Validity of provisional attachment orders passed under PMLA after commencement of CIRP and imposition of moratorium. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that upon admission of a Section 7 petition and imposition of moratorium under Section 14(1)(a) of the Code, legal proceedings such as attachment orders fall within the prohibition of the moratorium. In view of Section 238 of the Code and the principle that the later statute with a non-obstante clause prevails, the IBC's provisions override inconsistent provisions of PMLA. Considering the objects of IBC to expeditiously maximise value for creditors and the economic prejudice caused by prolonged criminal/adjudicatory proceedings under PMLA, the attachment orders passed under PMLA after commencement of CIRP are rendered null and void to the extent they conflict with the moratorium and the IBC's overriding effect. [Paras 8, 9]The attachment orders issued under PMLA after commencement of CIRP are a nullity and have no binding force in view of Sections 14(1)(a) and 238 of the IBC.Bar on concurrent proceedings and jurisdictional exclusion under Section 63 of the IBC - nullity of attachment orders passed in breach of the IBC moratorium - Whether the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA retains jurisdiction to attach properties of a corporate debtor undergoing CIRP. - HELD THAT: - Relying on the Appellate Tribunal's view that proceedings under PMLA before the Adjudicating Authority are civil in nature and on Section 63 of the IBC, the Tribunal concluded that a civil authority cannot entertain proceedings in respect of matters on which the NCLT/NCLAT has jurisdiction. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA does not have jurisdiction to continue or effect attachments of properties of a corporate debtor undergoing CIRP, insofar as such attachments conflict with the Code's jurisdictional scheme and moratorium. [Paras 8, 9]The Adjudicating Authority under PMLA lacks jurisdiction to attach properties of the Corporate Debtor undergoing CIRP; such attachments cannot stand in view of Section 63 read with Section 238 of the IBC.Resolution professional's right to take custody and control of assets under Section 18 of the IBC - nullity of attachment orders passed in breach of the IBC moratorium - Whether the Resolution Professional can take charge and custody of assets provisionally attached by the Enforcement Directorate. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that, since the attachment orders are null and non-est in law under the IBC, the Resolution Professional is entitled to take charge, custody and control of the corporate debtor's assets and deal with them under the Code as if no attachment existed. The Tribunal directed that sub-registrars give effect to this order and remove any notings of attachment in their records in respect of properties of the corporate debtor. [Paras 8, 9]The Resolution Professional can take possession and deal with the Corporate Debtor's properties as if there were no attachment; registrarial entries of attachment are to be removed.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the provisional attachment and corrigendum issued by the Enforcement Directorate as null and void insofar as they conflict with the IBC, held that the PMLA adjudicating authority lacks jurisdiction to attach properties of a corporate debtor in CIRP, and directed that the Resolution Professional may take custody of the assets and registrarial notings of attachment be removed.

Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money laundering Act - proceeds of crime - liquidation estate under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - non obstante / overriding effect of statutes - relinquishment of security interest - remedies and adjudicatory forum under the PMLA - moratorium under the IBCNon obstante / overriding effect of statutes - provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money laundering Act - liquidation estate under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Whether the PMLA attachment overrides the IBC liquidation process or vice versa where both enactments contain non obstante clauses. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that the question of which statute prevails arises only if there is an actual inconsistency between the enactments. After comparing objects and schemes, it found the PMLA and the IBC operate in different fields: PMLA targets proceeds of crime and provides a separate adjudicatory machinery to determine whether property is tainted, while the IBC governs maximisation and distribution of a corporate debtor's assets among stakeholders. Consequently there is no inherent repugnancy such as would permit the Adjudicating Authority under the IBC to usurp the PMLA authorities' function to decide whether property is proceeds of crime. The later enactment rule for conflicting non obstante clauses applies only where inconsistency is demonstrated; that is not the case here. The Tribunal therefore declined to nullify the PMLA provisional attachment on the ground of statutory conflict and observed that the PMLA authorities have jurisdiction to adjudicate attachment and confiscation issues. [Paras 41, 42, 49, 51, 52]No general precedence of the IBC over the PMLA; the PMLA regime and its authorities retain the power to determine taintedness and attachment, and this Adjudicating Authority will not override that function.Relinquishment of security interest - liquidation estate under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - distribution of liquidation proceeds - Whether relinquishment by secured creditors determines validity of the provisional attachment or the availability of assets to the liquidation estate. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined sections 52 and 53 of the IBC and concluded that a secured creditor's decision to relinquish or enforce security interest does not by itself decide the validity of a PMLA attachment. Even if a secured creditor realises excess over its debt, the surplus forms part of the liquidation estate; conversely, unpaid deficiency is addressed under the distribution scheme. Thus relinquishment is not determinative of whether the Enforcement Directorate's attachment must be set aside; the nature of the property as proceeds of crime is for PMLA authorities to decide. [Paras 30, 31, 32, 33, 49]Relinquishment of security interest is irrelevant to the question of validity of PMLA attachment; it does not entitle the liquidator to have the attachment set aside by this Tribunal.Remedies and adjudicatory forum under the PMLA - provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money laundering Act - restoration of confiscated property - What remedy is open to the liquidator in respect of properties provisionally attached by the Enforcement Directorate? - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal outlined the remedial scheme under the PMLA: provisional attachment under section 5(1) requires confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority under section 8; section 8(8) and the amended proviso permit the Special Court to consider claims of a claimant who acted in good faith and suffered quantifiable loss and to restore property even during trial; section 9 and its proviso deal with consequences of confiscation and challenges to encumbrances. The Tribunal held that the liquidator and secured creditors must avail themselves of these statutory remedies before the PMLA authorities and cannot obtain the relief sought from the IBC Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal explicitly left open that the PMLA authorities must decide claims uninfluenced by observations in this order. [Paras 43, 44, 52, 53, 54]Liquidator must approach the PMLA authorities (Adjudicating Authority/Special Court) under the remedies provided in the PMLA to challenge attachment or seek restoration; this Tribunal will not grant the reliefs sought.Final Conclusion: The application seeking de attachment and ancillary reliefs was dismissed; the Tribunal held that PMLA authorities have jurisdiction to decide taintedness and attachments, relinquishment of security interest is not determinative, and the liquidator must pursue statutory remedies under the PMLA. The IBC Adjudicating Authority declined to interfere with the provisional attachment and disposed of the application.