Tribunal Upholds NCLT Orders on PMLA Attachments, Emphasizes IBC's Primacy

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, upholding NCLT's orders that declared attachment orders under PMLA null and void. It held that NCLT has jurisdiction to entertain Resolution Professional's application under IBC. The Tribunal ruled that the moratorium under Section 14 of IBC applies to civil proceedings under PMLA. It emphasized IBC's primacy over PMLA in money laundering cases and highlighted the impact of Section 32A of IBC on attachment orders. The Tribunal concluded that releasing attachments during CIRP facilitates the resolution process and aligns with IBC's objectives.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of NCLT to interfere with Provisional Attachment Orders under PMLA.
2. Applicability of moratorium under Section 14 of IBC to proceedings under PMLA.
3. Primacy of PMLA over IBC in cases of money laundering.
4. Impact of Section 32A of IBC on attachment orders under PMLA.
5. Nature of proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of NCLT to interfere with Provisional Attachment Orders under PMLA:
The appellant argued that the NCLT did not have the jurisdiction to interfere with the Provisional Attachment Orders made by the Directorate of Enforcement under PMLA. It was contended that the Resolution Professional should have approached the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA or filed an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under PMLA. The judgment in "Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors." was cited to support the argument that NCLT cannot short-circuit judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings by invoking Section 60(5) of IBC. However, the Tribunal distinguished the facts of the present case from "Embassy Property Developments," noting that Section 60(5)(c) of IBC is broad in its sweep and includes questions of law or fact arising out of or in relation to insolvency resolution. Therefore, the NCLT has jurisdiction to entertain the application of the Resolution Professional under IBC.

2. Applicability of moratorium under Section 14 of IBC to proceedings under PMLA:
The appellant claimed that the moratorium under Section 14 of IBC does not apply to criminal proceedings, including those under PMLA. However, the Tribunal referred to the judgment in "P. Mohanraj & Ors. Vs. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd." where it was held that quasi-criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act fall within the scope of Section 14 of IBC. The Tribunal concluded that proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA, being civil in nature, are subject to the moratorium under Section 14 of IBC.

3. Primacy of PMLA over IBC in cases of money laundering:
The appellant argued that PMLA, being a special legislation aimed at dealing with money laundering, has primacy over IBC. The Tribunal acknowledged that both PMLA and IBC are special statutes but emphasized that IBC, being a subsequent statute with a specific objective of insolvency resolution, has an overriding effect as per Section 238 of IBC. The Tribunal noted that the objective of IBC is to maximize the value of assets and ensure a time-bound resolution, which would be hindered if properties remain under attachment during CIRP.

4. Impact of Section 32A of IBC on attachment orders under PMLA:
The Tribunal discussed the introduction of Section 32A of IBC, which provides immunity to the corporate debtor and its property from prosecution and attachment for offences committed prior to the commencement of CIRP, subject to certain conditions. The Tribunal noted that while Section 32A applies post-approval of the resolution plan, the principles underlying the provision support the release of attachments during CIRP to facilitate the resolution process. The Tribunal emphasized that the continuation of attachments would deter potential resolution applicants and undermine the objectives of IBC.

5. Nature of proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA:
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court judgment in "Pareena Swarup Vs. Union of India," where it was acknowledged that proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA are civil in nature. The Tribunal concluded that since the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA are civil, they fall within the scope of the moratorium under Section 14 of IBC, which prohibits the continuation of such proceedings during CIRP.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, upholding the NCLT's orders that declared the attachment orders under PMLA as null and void in view of Sections 14(1)(a), 63, and 238 of IBC. The Tribunal emphasized the need to balance the objectives of both PMLA and IBC, ensuring that the resolution process under IBC is not hindered by attachments under PMLA.

---