https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415861 A writ petition challenging interference with a liquidation process was not rendered infructuous by a later provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, because the core challenge to the respondent's jurisdiction to obstruct the liquidation estate remained live. In liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the statutory bar under Section 32A was held to operate once the Adjudicating Authority approved the liquidation mode of sale under Regulation 32; from that point, further attachment or coercive action against the corporate debtor's liquidation assets could not continue, and the sale certificate or other ministerial steps were not the ative trigger. en-us Wed, 15 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Dec 2021 10:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415861 A writ petition challenging interference with a liquidation process was not rendered infructuous by a later provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, because the core challenge to the respondent's jurisdiction to obstruct the liquidation estate remained live. In liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the statutory bar under Section 32A was held to operate once the Adjudicating Authority approved the liquidation mode of sale under Regulation 32; from that point, further attachment or coercive action against the corporate debtor's liquidation assets could not continue, and the sale certificate or other ministerial steps were not the ative trigger. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 15 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415861