Benami property jurisdiction: IBC tribunals lack power to challenge Benami Act attachment; such assets fall outside the liquidation estate.

Orders of provisional attachment and confiscation under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act are governed by that Act's exclusive adjudicatory scheme and therefore cannot be challenged before tribunals constituted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code; this excludes insolvency fora from determining benami status. The moratorium under the IBC does not stay or invalidate sovereign in rem Benami Act proceedings, which are public-interest confiscation actions rather than creditor enforcement. Property provisionally attached or confiscated as benami ceases to be beneficially owned by the corporate debtor and, once so determined, does not form part of the liquidation estate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether orders of provisional attachment and confiscation under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 can be challenged before tribunals constituted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (ii) Whether the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 operates to stay or invalidate proceedings under the Benami Act; (iii) Whether property provisionally attached or confiscated under the Benami Act forms part of the liquidation estate under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue (i): Whether orders of provisional attachment and confiscation under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 can be challenged before tribunals constituted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The Benami Act establishes a structured adjudicatory scheme for identification, provisional attachment, adjudication and confiscation, with an exclusive hierarchy of authorities and appellate remedy; it contains provisions insulating those matters from ordinary civil fora. The IBC is a separate, self-contained code directed to insolvency resolution and liquidation of assets beneficially owned by the corporate debtor. Where a specialised statute confers jurisdiction over determinations of title, attachment or confiscation in the public law domain, the adjudicatory fora under IBC do not supplant that exclusive mechanism. Harmonisation of the two statutes was sought, but where the Benami Act governs the determination of whether property is benami and effects vesting in the Central Government, those determinations fall outside the ordinary insolvency adjudicatory function.

Conclusion: Orders of provisional attachment and confiscation under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 cannot be challenged before tribunals constituted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. This issue is decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 operates to stay or invalidate proceedings under the Benami Act.

Analysis: The moratorium under the IBC is directed to creditor actions and proceedings seeking recovery or enforcement against the corporate debtor and is intended to preserve the debtor's estate for orderly insolvency resolution. Proceedings under the Benami Act are sovereign in rem proceedings aimed at identification and confiscation of benami property and operate in the public interest; they are not creditor enforcement proceedings. Section 32A's protections are event-based and trigger only upon approval of a resolution plan or completion of liquidation sale to an unconnected third party, and do not retroactively validate defective title.

Conclusion: The moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not stay or invalidate proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. This issue is decided against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether property provisionally attached or confiscated under the Benami Act forms part of the liquidation estate under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The liquidation estate comprises assets beneficially owned by the corporate debtor. Property held benami is held for the benefit of a real owner and, once determined to be benami and provisionally attached or confiscated under the Benami Act, beneficial ownership is negated and vesting in the Central Government follows. Section 36 and related provisions exclude assets held in trust or subject to determination by other authorities from the liquidation estate to the extent determined by those authorities.

Conclusion: Property provisionally attached or confiscated under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 does not form part of the liquidation estate under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. This issue is decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The adjudicatory jurisdiction of tribunals constituted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not extend to reviewing or nullifying orders of attachment or confiscation passed under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988; proceedings under the Benami Act must be pursued before the authorities and appellate fora established under that Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special enactment establishes an exclusive adjudicatory mechanism for determination of title, attachment and confiscation in the public law domain, tribunals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 lack jurisdiction to entertain challenges to orders under that special enactment, and assets determined to be benami do not form part of the insolvency liquidation estate.

---