TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the mortgaged properties attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were shown to be proceeds of crime or were bona fide assets of the secured creditor and the borrower; (ii) whether the secured creditor's right to recover its dues had priority over attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in view of the later amendments to the special recovery statutes.
Issue (i): Whether the mortgaged properties attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were shown to be proceeds of crime or were bona fide assets of the secured creditor and the borrower.
Analysis: The properties had been acquired before the criminal activity relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate and had been validly mortgaged to the bank against sanctioned loan facilities. The bank was not shown to have any role in the scheduled offence, nor was there material to show that the attached assets were derived from criminal proceeds. The Tribunal treated the bank as an innocent secured creditor and applied the principle that a person or property lacking direct or indirect nexus with the proceeds of crime, and lacking the requisite knowledge or involvement, cannot be visited with attachment merely on suspicion. The Tribunal also accepted that bona fide acquisition and mortgage for fair value and legitimate financing defeated the claim that the assets themselves were proceeds of crime.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant bank; the attached mortgaged properties were not to be treated as proceeds of crime for the purpose of confirmation of attachment.
Issue (ii): Whether the secured creditor's right to recover its dues had priority over attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in view of the later amendments to the special recovery statutes.
Analysis: The Tribunal relied on the later statutory regime conferring priority on secured creditors, namely the amended provisions giving overriding effect to secured debt recovery under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. It held that where two special statutes contain non obstante clauses, the later enactment prevails, and that the legislative amendments were intended to protect secured creditors from being prejudiced by attachment proceedings. On that basis, the Tribunal concluded that the attachment could not defeat the bank's priority in relation to mortgaged assets that were not shown to be proceeds of crime.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant bank; the secured creditor's recovery right had priority and the attachment could not stand.
Final Conclusion: The confirmation of attachment was set aside and the bank was left free to pursue recovery in accordance with the secured-debt recovery framework, subject to the directions recorded by the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: A bona fide secured creditor's mortgaged asset, absent proof that it is derived from or connected with proceeds of crime, cannot be sustained under money-laundering attachment proceedings, and later special statutes granting priority to secured creditors prevail over inconsistent earlier attachments.
TaxTMI 
