Section 32A relief is premature without a resolution plan or liquidation sale; attached property remains governed by PMLA safeguards.
Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 applies only after statutory triggers occur, namely approval of a resolution plan involving change of control or sale of liquidation assets to a qualifying person; because neither event had occurred, the application was premature and not maintainable. In parallel, the attachment scheme under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 does not by itself transfer title, and a secured creditor or assignee could not obtain immediate release of the attached properties by bypassing the statutory safeguards; any remedy remained subject to the adjudication, confiscation, and restoration framework, including section 8(8).
Issues: (i) Whether the application under section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was maintainable at the stage where no resolution plan had been approved and no liquidation asset had been sold. (ii) Whether a secured creditor or assignee of debt could seek release or lifting of attachment of the properties under challenge in the light of the safeguards available under section 8(5) to 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Issue (i): Whether the application under section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was maintainable at the stage where no resolution plan had been approved and no liquidation asset had been sold.
Analysis: Section 32A operates only when the statutory conditions are satisfied, namely approval of a resolution plan resulting in change of control, or sale of liquidation assets to a qualifying person. The relief under that provision is not available in the abstract or before those triggering events occur. On the admitted facts, no resolution plan had been approved and no sale of liquidation assets had taken place.
Conclusion: The application under section 32A was not maintainable at that stage and was premature.
Issue (ii): Whether a secured creditor or assignee of debt could seek release or lifting of attachment of the properties under challenge in the light of the safeguards available under section 8(5) to 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Analysis: The statutory scheme under section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 shows that attachment does not by itself transfer title, and the rights of a claimant with a legitimate interest are preserved until the trial concludes and confiscation or release is determined. The mechanism for restoration under section 8(8) protects lawful claimants after confiscation, and the Tribunal reasoned that immediate release at the instance of a financial institution could prejudice competing claims and the statutory scheme.
Conclusion: The secured creditor or assignee was not entitled to have the attachment lifted on that basis, and its remedy remained subject to section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the statutory preconditions for invoking section 32A were absent and the attachment challenge could not override the protective framework under section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 applies only upon satisfaction of its specified preconditions, while attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 remains subject to the statute's own scheme for adjudication, confiscation, and restoration of property rights.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
