Section 32A protection under insolvency law bars PMLA attachment against corporate debtor assets after genuine resolution and change in control.

Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code protected the corporate debtor's assets after approval of a resolution plan and a genuine change in management to an unconnected resolution applicant. The Tribunal held that, once the statutory conditions were met, enforcement action for pre-CIRP offences could continue only against persons responsible for the offence and against non-debtor property, not against the corporate debtor's property. Applying that construction, the attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act could not survive against the debtor's assets, and the attachment order was liable to be set aside. The Tribunal also noted that the creditor challenge had attained finality and could not revive the basis for attachment.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 protected the corporate debtor and its property from continuation of attachment proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 after approval of a resolution plan resulting in a change in management and control.

Analysis: The resolution plan had been approved and the corporate debtor had undergone a change in management to an unconnected resolution applicant. Section 32A was construed as creating immunity for the corporate debtor and its property in relation to offences committed before commencement of CIRP, while preserving liability only against persons involved in the offence and against property of persons other than the corporate debtor. The statutory scheme was read as giving a successful resolution applicant a clean slate and protecting value maximisation, so that enforcement action could not continue against the corporate debtor's assets once the statutory conditions were satisfied. The Tribunal also noted that the challenge to the creditor claim had attained finality and could not revive the basis for attachment.

Conclusion: The attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could not be continued against the corporate debtor's property after approval of the resolution plan, and the attachment order was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The corporate debtor was entitled to the statutory protection available on successful resolution, and the enforcement attachment could not survive against its assets in the hands of the new management.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a resolution plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 results in a genuine change in control to an unconnected person, Section 32A bars enforcement action against the corporate debtor's property for pre-CIRP offences, while leaving liability to proceed against the responsible persons and other non-debtor property.

---