SBICAP wins as secured creditor rights prevail over PMLA provisional attachment orders on mortgaged assets

The Bombay HC ruled in favor of SBICAP, holding that a provisional attachment order under PMLA cannot override the first charge of secured creditors over mortgaged assets. The court found that SBICAP's security interest in unsold units was validly created and that the attachment order undermined the SWAMIH fund's purpose of assisting homebuyers by preventing banks from lending to flat purchasers. The court emphasized that PMLA provisions do not contain overriding charges that defeat secured creditor rights, and that the entity subject to PMLA proceedings lacked transferable interest in the attached units.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the provisional attachment order dated 11th August 2022.
2. Impact of the attachment order on SBICAP's first charge over certain assets.
3. Validity of the Directorate of Enforcement's actions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the provisional attachment order dated 11th August 2022:
The Petitioner, SBICAP Ventures Ltd, challenged the order of 11th August 2022 issued by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bengaluru Zonal Office, which provisionally attached assets worth Rs. 300 crores. The attachment targeted assets of the Mantri Group, including Castles Vista Pvt Ltd, Mantri Developers, and an individual, Sushil Mantri. The Petitioner argued that the attachment compromised their first charge over certain units in the "Mantri Serenity" project, affecting funding for flat purchasers. The Court noted that the FIR regarding the predicate offence under the PMLA was stayed by the Karnataka High Court, rendering it non-operational at the time of the impugned order.

2. Impact of the attachment order on SBICAP's first charge over certain assets:
SBICAP, through the SWAMIH Investment Fund-I, invested in the Mantri Serenity project to ensure its completion. SBICAP had a first charge over the project's unsold units and receivables, secured by various legal agreements, including a debenture trust deed and an inter-creditor agreement with Piramal Capital. The impugned order disrupted this arrangement, jeopardizing project completion and the interests of home buyers. The Court emphasized that SWAMIH's purpose was to rescue stalled projects and that the attachment order undermined this objective, affecting the cash flow and sales in the project.

3. Validity of the Directorate of Enforcement's actions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA):
The Directorate of Enforcement initiated an investigation under the PMLA, alleging diversion of funds by the Mantri Group. However, the Court found no evidence that the assets secured by SBICAP were proceeds of crime. The impugned order speculated that the Mantri Group might transfer beneficial interest in the attached units, which the Court deemed impossible due to SBICAP's secured position. The Court criticized the Directorate's speculative approach and lack of concrete findings, noting that the attachment order did not secure the interests of home buyers or ensure the recovery of public funds.

The Court concluded that the impugned order lacked justification under the PMLA and failed to consider the larger public purpose served by SBICAP's investment in completing delayed projects. The Karnataka High Court's stay on the FIR further weakened the basis for the attachment. Consequently, the Court made Rule absolute in favor of the Petitioner, setting aside the provisional attachment order and emphasizing the importance of completing the housing project for the benefit of home buyers.

---