https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768778 Moratorium under section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not automatically bar attachment proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act because the two statutes operate in distinct fields. Section 32A protection was unavailable where no approved resolution plan satisfying the statutory conditions was shown, so mere commencement of CIRP did not defeat attachment. Properties acquired or mortgaged before the alleged offence were not immune from attachment merely on that basis. Section 26E of SARFAESI gave secured creditors priority in debt recovery, but it did not override attachment under the money-laundering regime. The attachment order and its confirmation were upheld. en-us Thu, 06 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Apr 2025 08:36:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768778 Moratorium under section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not automatically bar attachment proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act because the two statutes operate in distinct fields. Section 32A protection was unavailable where no approved resolution plan satisfying the statutory conditions was shown, so mere commencement of CIRP did not defeat attachment. Properties acquired or mortgaged before the alleged offence were not immune from attachment merely on that basis. Section 26E of SARFAESI gave secured creditors priority in debt recovery, but it did not override attachment under the money-laundering regime. The attachment order and its confirmation were upheld. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 06 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768778