TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, after approval of a resolution plan and change in control of the corporate debtor, a provisional attachment order passed under the money laundering law prior to such approval ceases to operate by virtue of Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Analysis: Section 32A was read as drawing a distinction between immunity from prosecution under sub-section (1) and the bar against action against the property of the corporate debtor under sub-section (2). The protection in sub-section (1) was held to operate only subject to the statutory conditions, including approval of the resolution plan and the absence of abetment or conspiracy by the incoming management. Sub-section (2) was understood to bar fresh action against the corporate debtor's property after approval of the resolution plan, but not to nullify a provisional attachment already passed before such approval. The statutory language was treated as clear, and it was held impermissible to rewrite the provision to retrospectively erase a valid pre-approval attachment order.
Conclusion: The challenge to the provisional attachment order and its confirmation was rejected. The prior attachment was held to remain unaffected, and Section 32A(2) was held not to invalidate it merely because the resolution plan was approved later.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
