https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773323 The Rajasthan HC set aside a Single Judge's order that vacated an interim stay on an NCLT decision. The NCLT had vacated attachment orders under PMLA 2002, but the HC held that NCLT lacks jurisdiction to nullify orders passed by PMLA authorities. The court ruled that PMLA 2002 is a self-contained code with its own appellate mechanism, and attachment orders confirmed by adjudicating authorities can only be challenged before PMLA Appellate Tribunal. The HC found that Section 238 of IB Code 2016's overriding clause doesn't confer jurisdiction on NCLT to vacate PMLA attachment orders, especially when under appeal before PMLA Appellate Tribunal. The interim stay was confirmed, preserving status quo pending final adjudication. Appeal allowed. en-us Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jun 2025 08:28:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773323 The Rajasthan HC set aside a Single Judge's order that vacated an interim stay on an NCLT decision. The NCLT had vacated attachment orders under PMLA 2002, but the HC held that NCLT lacks jurisdiction to nullify orders passed by PMLA authorities. The court ruled that PMLA 2002 is a self-contained code with its own appellate mechanism, and attachment orders confirmed by adjudicating authorities can only be challenged before PMLA Appellate Tribunal. The HC found that Section 238 of IB Code 2016's overriding clause doesn't confer jurisdiction on NCLT to vacate PMLA attachment orders, especially when under appeal before PMLA Appellate Tribunal. The interim stay was confirmed, preserving status quo pending final adjudication. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773323