Tribunal Prioritizes Secured Creditors Over Government Claims in Mortgage Dispute

The Tribunal set aside the Impugned Order and Provisional Attachment Order concerning mortgaged properties, emphasizing secured creditors' priority over government claims and the properties being mortgaged before alleged criminal activities. The decision aimed to prevent banks from suffering due to prolonged trials against borrowers, ultimately deeming the attachment orders legally untenable.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Provisional Attachment Order under PMLA.
2. Secured creditor's rights over mortgaged properties.
3. Alleged illegal activities and their impact on secured assets.
4. Legal precedence and applicability of SARFAESI Act and RDDB Act.
5. Adjudicating Authority's decision and its validity.

Detailed Analysis:

Provisional Attachment Order under PMLA:
The appeal was filed under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) against the Impugned Order dated 26.04.2017, which confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order No. 22/2016. This order provisionally attached 1625 immovable properties and 4 FDRs in the name of PRP Granites, valued at Rs. 102,95,57,710/- and Rs. 32,57,275/- respectively.

Secured Creditor's Rights over Mortgaged Properties:
The appellant, Indian Bank, argued that many of the attached properties were mortgaged with them. The bank had provided credit facilities to PRP Granites based on these mortgages. The appellant contended that as a secured creditor, they had a paramount first charge over the assets. The bank's position was that the attachment order should not have included properties mortgaged to them, as they had a legal right to recover their dues by selling these secured assets.

Alleged Illegal Activities and Their Impact on Secured Assets:
The respondent No. 1, representing the Enforcement Directorate, argued that PRP Granites and its partners were involved in illegal quarrying and other statutory violations, which led to the registration of multiple FIRs. These illegal activities allegedly resulted in proceeds of crime, which were subsequently invested in acquiring the attached properties. The Enforcement Directorate maintained that the properties were involved in money laundering activities as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA.

Legal Precedence and Applicability of SARFAESI Act and RDDB Act:
The appellant cited the judgment in "State Bank of India v. The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement," which established that secured creditors have priority over government claims. The amendments to the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, provide that secured creditors' rights to realize secured debts have priority over all other debts and government dues. The appellant argued that these amendments should override the provisions of PMLA concerning the attached properties.

Adjudicating Authority's Decision and Its Validity:
The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order without addressing the appellant's contentions adequately. The appellant argued that the authority failed to appreciate that the bank, as a secured creditor, had a first charge over the mortgaged properties. The authority also did not consider that the properties were mortgaged before the alleged criminal activities, making the attachment under PMLA inappropriate.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the Impugned Order dated 26.04.2017 and the Provisional Attachment Order dated 09.12.2016 concerning the mortgaged properties. The decision was based on the precedence that secured creditors have priority over government claims and that the properties were mortgaged before the alleged criminal activities. The Tribunal emphasized that the banks, dealing with public money, should not suffer due to prolonged trials against the borrowers. The appeal was allowed, and the attachment orders were deemed untenable in law.

---