https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94048 The AT dismissed the appeal, holding that the impugned NCLT order did not effect a provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 s.5(1); instead it merely restrained the Appellants from mortgaging, creating charges or otherwise alienating movable or immovable assets. The Tribunal found no narration or direction constituting attachment, and no provision under the IBC or Companies Act empowering NCLT to attach the properties. Because the restraint served only to preserve third-party interests pending NCLT proceedings and did not amount to provisional attachment intended to secure proceeds of crime for eventual settlement, there was no merit to interfere with the impugned order. Appeal disposed of. en-us Tue, 11 Nov 2025 08:20:19 +0530 Tue, 11 Nov 2025 08:20:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94048 The AT dismissed the appeal, holding that the impugned NCLT order did not effect a provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 s.5(1); instead it merely restrained the Appellants from mortgaging, creating charges or otherwise alienating movable or immovable assets. The Tribunal found no narration or direction constituting attachment, and no provision under the IBC or Companies Act empowering NCLT to attach the properties. Because the restraint served only to preserve third-party interests pending NCLT proceedings and did not amount to provisional attachment intended to secure proceeds of crime for eventual settlement, there was no merit to interfere with the impugned order. Appeal disposed of. Highlights Money Laundering Tue, 11 Nov 2025 08:20:19 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94048