https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302253 The NCLT held that it had no jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to quash or set aside an attachment of a corporate debtor's property made by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It reasoned that PMLA proceedings operate in a distinct field, that the Tribunal is not a forum for judicial review of Enforcement Directorate orders, and that insolvency provisions do not confer power to annul such an attachment. Any challenge to the attachment, if available, lies before the authority that issued the order or its appellate forum. The application was therefore not maintainable. en-us Thu, 31 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 May 2022 08:41:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302253 The NCLT held that it had no jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to quash or set aside an attachment of a corporate debtor's property made by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It reasoned that PMLA proceedings operate in a distinct field, that the Tribunal is not a forum for judicial review of Enforcement Directorate orders, and that insolvency provisions do not confer power to annul such an attachment. Any challenge to the attachment, if available, lies before the authority that issued the order or its appellate forum. The application was therefore not maintainable. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 31 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302253