NCLT Dismissal: IBC vs. PMLA Jurisdiction

The appeal was dismissed as the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) does not have jurisdiction over matters governed by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) does not apply to PMLA proceedings, and Section 32-A of IBC was found inapplicable due to the absence of an approved resolution plan. The judgment clarified that there is no conflict between IBC and PMLA, with PMLA taking precedence in cases involving criminal proceeds. The appeal was deemed not maintainable, directing the resolution professional to seek redressal through the PMLA Appellate Tribunal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of NCLT under IBC vs. PMLA.
2. Effect of moratorium under Section 14 of IBC on PMLA proceedings.
3. Applicability of Section 32-A of IBC.
4. Priority and conflict between IBC and PMLA.
5. Validity and maintainability of the appeal.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of NCLT under IBC vs. PMLA:
The NCLT, while dealing with insolvency proceedings, does not have jurisdiction over matters governed by PMLA. The judgment emphasized that NCLT cannot adjudicate on issues related to the attachment of properties under PMLA, as these issues fall within the exclusive domain of the authorities under PMLA. The NCLT is not a superior court with judicial review powers over administrative actions taken under PMLA.

2. Effect of Moratorium under Section 14 of IBC on PMLA Proceedings:
The moratorium imposed under Section 14 of IBC does not apply to proceedings under PMLA. The judgment referenced the Madras High Court's decision, which clarified that Section 14 of IBC does not bar proceedings under PMLA, as PMLA is a special statute with its own objectives. The attachment of properties under PMLA is not affected by the moratorium under IBC.

3. Applicability of Section 32-A of IBC:
Section 32-A of IBC, which provides immunity to the corporate debtor from prosecution for prior offenses upon approval of a resolution plan, was discussed. However, the judgment noted that this section only applies after the approval of the resolution plan by the adjudicating authority. Since no resolution plan was approved in the present case, Section 32-A was not applicable.

4. Priority and Conflict between IBC and PMLA:
The judgment highlighted that there is no repugnancy or inconsistency between IBC and PMLA. Both statutes operate in their respective spheres, with PMLA dealing with the proceeds of crime and IBC focusing on insolvency resolution. The PMLA takes precedence over IBC concerning the attachment and confiscation of properties derived from criminal activities.

5. Validity and Maintainability of the Appeal:
The appeal filed by the resolution professional was deemed not maintainable. The judgment emphasized that issues related to the attachment of properties under PMLA should be addressed through the appellate mechanism provided under PMLA, not through NCLT or NCLAT. The resolution professional had already approached the PMLA Appellate Tribunal, and the appropriate forum for challenging the attachment order was under PMLA.

Disposition:
The appeal was dismissed, and the resolution professional was directed to pursue the remedy under PMLA. The judgment underscored that the proper recourse for the corporate debtor is to approach the competent forum under PMLA for redressal.

---