2020 (2) TMI 1685 - HC - Money Laundering

Judgment allows banks to sell properties, addresses conflict between laws

Deputy Director Versus PNB Housing Finance Limited, ICICI Bank Limited, State Bank of India

The judgment in this case condoned the delay in filing appeals and considered common legal questions. It released certain properties from attachment, ... Release of attached property - priority over settlement of dues - HELD THAT:- On the conjoint reading of both the Acts, we are of the considered view that PMLA would prevail over the SARFAESI Act. The adjudicating authority could not release the properties during the pendency of trial which commenced pursuant to the FIR dated 25.03.2013. Appeal disposed off. Issues:1. Delay in filing appeals2. Release of properties from attachment3. Conflict between SARFAESI Act and PMLADelay in filing appeals:The judgment condoned the delay in filing the appeals and proceeded to consider the common questions of law and facts involved in three appeals collectively. The loan was sanctioned by the respondent bank in 2010, with subsequent legal actions taken by the appellant leading to the appeals.Release of properties from attachment:The order of the Appellate Tribunal released certain properties from attachment, allowing the appellant banks to take possession of the mortgaged properties. The banks were permitted to sell these properties and deposit any surplus amount with the respondent, in this case, the Enforcement Directorate. The judgment emphasized the importance of justice in allowing the sale of properties and proper handling of the proceeds.Conflict between SARFAESI Act and PMLA:The judgment delved into the conflict between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). It highlighted the overriding effect of the PMLA over other laws, including the SARFAESI Act. The Court concluded that the PMLA would prevail over the SARFAESI Act, emphasizing that the properties could not be released during the trial proceedings initiated after the FIR.The judgment ultimately disposed of the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and directing the parties to maintain status quo until final adjudication by the trial court. The parties were advised to seek remedies after the trial court's decision, ensuring proper legal procedures were followed in the resolution of the issues at hand.