TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 1027
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thority (NCLT), New Delhi, Court-III in CA 332 of 2018 in IB- 189(ND)/2017. 2. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 301 of 2020 is also arising out of the same impugned order. The Deputy Collector and Competent Authority has filed the Appeal for National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) (Deputy Collector- in short) 3. CA 332 of 2018 was filed by the Resolution Professional when Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was pending against the Corporate Debtor- 'Namdhari Food International Private Limited' seeking removal of attachment order dated 22.10.2018 vide which accounts of the Corporate Debtor in branches of the State Bank of India were attached. The Deputy Collector (Appellant in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 301 of 2020) inspite of service of notice did not respond and remained ex parte. The Adjudicating Authority after considering the matter for reasons recorded in the impugned order passed following operative directions: - "6. The registration of CR No. 89/13 under the Provisions of the IPC and the MPID Act, is in relation to the alleged offences committed by the erstwhile management of the CD and other entities. But the Company (CD) cannot be prosecuted unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1999' ("MPID Act" for short). The charge-sheet was filed at designated MPID Court, Mumbai as Case No.5 of 2019 was registered. NSEL has stated that the Competent Authority/ Government of Maharashtra in exercise of its powers under Sections 4 and 5 of the MPID Act attached the properties of the Corporate Debtor vide notification dated 31.03.2017 (Annexure- A-6; Page 98) (Second Page of Annexure A-5 is also marked by Advocate as "98". We treat that Page as 97A). Further, the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of its powers under Section 4(1) of MPID Act, attached the bank account of the Corporate Debtor vide notification dated 19.10.2018 which was communicated to the State Bank of India by letter dated 22.10.2018 (Annexure- A7; Page 109). 5. Appeal page 128 shows that the State Bank of India had filed Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC" in short) having No.(IB)-189(ND)/2017 against the Corporate Debtor which came to be admitted on 30.08.2017. Thus, attaching account of the Corporate Debtor (Annexure- A7 dated 22.10.2018) was subsequent to the admission of Application under Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... argued for the Appellant that such CA 332 of 2018 was filed by the Resolution Professional. It is claimed that the Resolution Professional had sought intervention in MA 1512 of 2017 in MPID Special Case No. 1 of 2014 and its Application was rejected by the Designated Court, Mumbai under the MPID Act, vide order dated 30.11.2018 which declined to detach the properties of the Corporate Debtor but gave liberty to the IRP to contest the objection before the Court under Section 7 of the MPID Act. NSEL has attached copies of the MA and order passed in MA in the MPID Act as Annexures A-9 & 10 (Pages 230 and 243 of the Appeal). It is argued for NSEL that inspite of the liberty given to proceed under Section 7 of the MPID Act when the liquidator came to be appointed by the Liquidation order passed on 13.03.2019, the Liquidator rather sought decision of CA 332 of 2018 which had been filed during CIRP. The Appeal claims that the Application filed by RP did not seek detachment of the properties attached under the notification dated 31.03.2017 and still the impugned order was passed referring to that notification also. It is claimed that the RP did not rely on Section 32A of the IBC and still ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eputy Collector, it is claimed that IBC is not meant to protect entities which have committed fraud. IBC cannot have overriding effect on MPID Act and the Corporate Debtor cannot take advantage of IBC. 12. We have already referred to the gist of the Appeals. Unless mentioned otherwise, we would be normally referring to documents and averments made at the time of arguments in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 293 of 2020. Submissions in brief 13. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant- NSEL has argued that the Resolution Professional failed to intervene before the MPID Court and instead of filing Appeal, the Liquidator pursued CA 332/2018 before the Adjudicating Authority. It is argued that the relief could have been sought only under the MPID Act. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, the Adjudicating Authority did not have power to set aside a gazette notification passed by an Administrative or quasi-judicial body. Reliance has been placed on judgment in the matter of "Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors." [2019 SCC OnLine SC 1542]. It is also argued that Section 32A of the IBC gives immunity to the Successful Resolution App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e applied to determine as to whether one particular statute or part thereof has to give way to the other." 14. It is argued that MPID Act having been enacted under the State List over which the Parliament has no jurisdiction to make enactments which would override the provisions of MPID Act. It is also argued that the IBC nowhere mentions or discusses attachment of properties and how the same are to be treated. Thus, reliance could not be placed on Section 238 of the IBC is submitted by the Appellants. 15. The Corporate Debtor through the Liquidator has supported the impugned order and is relying on Section 32A of the IBC. It is stated that under Sections 18, 25 & 35 of the IBC the IRP / RP / Liquidator are duty bound to take over the assets of the Corporate Debtor wherever the same may be so as to keep the Corporate Debtor as a going concern and to make efforts to find Resolution Plan during CIRP or to sell as going concern in liquidation and to follow procedure as found with regard to liquidation. It is argued that without taking charge of the property of the Corporate Debtor the Liquidator cannot proceed further. It is argued that no action can be taken against property of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of liquidator to perform his duty under the IBC. The attachment of accounts done after CIRP was initiated could not have been enforced in view of Moratorium which got attracted under Section 14 of the IBC. The attachment is civil in nature and no single class of creditors can benefit from the assets of the Corporate Debtor. It is argued that the Liquidator has admitted claim of NSEL to the extent of Rs. 51,01,73,352.72/-. 17. The Counsel for the Liquidator has relied on judgment of this Tribunal in the matter of "Directorate of Enforcement vs. Manoj Kumar Agarwal"- [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 575/2019] which was in the context of 'Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002' ("PMLA" in short) where similar provisions as in MPID Act are there with regard to attachment and the Act has provisions for civil actions as well as criminal actions. Learned Counsel submitted that this Tribunal has held attachment being civil in nature during CIRP, Moratorium would apply and when it comes to liquidation, liquidator will be entitled to take into his control properties of the Corporate Debtor so as to deal with the same under the provisions of the IBC with regard to liquidation. Brief ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., director, partner or manager or member of the said Financial Establishment as the Government may think fit. (2) On the publication of the order under sub-section (1), all the properties and assets of the Financial Establishment and the persons mentioned therein shall forthwith vest in the Competent Authority appointed by the Government, pending further order from the Designated Court. (3) The Collector of a District shall be competent to receive the complaints from his District under sub-section (1) and he shall forward the same together with his report to the Government at the earliest and shall send a copy of the complaint also to the concerned District Police Superintendent or Commissioner of Police, as the case may be, for investigation." 19. The "Competent Authority" referred in sub-section (2) of Section 4 is appointed under Section 5(1) which states that the Government may while issuing the order under sub-section (1) of Section 4, appoint any of its officers not below the rank of the Deputy Collector, as the Competent Authority, to exercise control over the monies and the properties attached by the Government under Section 4, of a Financial Establishment. As per Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0. Section 8 deals with contingency where the assets available for attachment of a Financial Establishment or other person referred to in Section 4 are found to be less than the amount or value which such Financial Establishment is required to re-pay to the depositors. Section 9 deals with 'Security in lieu of attachment' for which the concerned Financial Establishment or person whose property has been or is about to be attached may apply to the Designated Court. Section 10 is regarding "Administration of property attached". Then there is provision of Appeal provided under Section 11 to the Hon'ble High Court which can be preferred by a person, including Competent Authority aggrieved by the order of the Designated Court. Then the portion relating to Criminal Part is there. Section 12 deals with 'Appointment of Special Public Prosecutor'. Section 13 may be reproduced. The same reads as under:- "13. (1) The Designated Court may take cognizance of the offence without the accused being committed to it for trial and, in trying the accused person, shall follow the procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates. (2) The pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in pith and substance the said Act comes under the State List of the Seventh Schedule. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants before us has referred to this portion of the judgment in the matter of "K.K. Baskaran" (Supra) to submit that MPID Act would be a matter under the State List. It is argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Innoventive Industries Ltd." (supra) held in para 58 that the IBC is Parliamentary law that is an exhaustive code on the subject matter of insolvency in relation to corporate entities, and is made under Entry 9, List III in the Seventh Schedule which reads as under:- "9. Bankruptcy and insolvency" 25. Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to case law held in Paras 51.1 and 51.2 that question of repugnancy under Article 254 would arise only if both the Parliamentary (or existing law) and the State law are referable to List III of the Seventh Schedule. In the matter which was before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Innoventive Industries Ltd." (supra) the question of repugnancy was looked into by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of Maharashtra Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958. Para 9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., that if the President assents to a State law which has been reserved for his consideration, it will prevail notwithstanding its repugnancy to an earlier law of the Union, both laws dealing with a concurrent subject. In such a case, the Central Act will give way to the State Act only to the extent of inconsistency between the two, and no more. In short, the result of obtaining the assent of the President to a State Act which is inconsistent with a previous Union law relating to a concurrent subject would be that the State Act will prevail in that State and override the provisions of the Central Act in their applicability to that State only. The predominance of the State law may however be taken away if Parliament legislates under the proviso to cl. (2). The proviso to Art. 254(2) empowers the Union Parliament to repeal or amend a repugnant State law, either directly, or by itself enacting a law repugnant to the State law with respect to the 'same matter'. Even though the subsequent law made by Parliament does not expressly repeal a State law, even then, the State law will become void as soon as the subsequent law of Parliament creating repugnancy is made. A State law would....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I on the one hand and List I and List III on the other. If such overlapping exists in any particular case, the State law will be ultra vires because of the non-obstante clause in Art. 246(1) read with the opening words "Subject to" in Art. 246(3). In such a case, the State law will fail not because of repugnance to the Union law but due to want of legislative competence. It is no doubt true that the expression "a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact" in Art. 254(1) is susceptible of a construction that repugnance between a State law and a law made by Parliament may take place outside the concurrent sphere because Parliament is competent to enact law with respect to subjects included in List III as well as 'List I" But if Art. 254(1) is read as a whole, it will be seen that it is expressly made subject to cl. (2) which makes reference to repugnancy in the field of Concurrent List-in other words, if cl. (2) is to be the guide in the determination of scope of cl. (1), the repugnancy between Union and State law must be taken to refer only to the Concurrent field. Art. 254(1) speaks of a State law being repugnant to (a) a law made by Parliament or (b) an exi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h is an Act earlier to IBC) has effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent with any other law, the said Section 14 would be subject to the subsequent Code promulgated by the Government of India which has amended laws related to insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner. 30. We have already referred to provisions of MPID Act in short. Earlier this Tribunal had occasion to deal with attachment made under PMLA in the matter of "Directorate of Enforcement vs. Manoj Kumar Agarwal" (supra). In that judgment of ours, we had examined the provisions of PMLA. In that matter also there was resistance to taken over charge of the properties of the Corporate Debtor by the Resolution Professional and the ground of attachment of properties of the Corporate Debtor was obstruction to smooth CIRP. 31. Like the present matter, in the matter of "Directorate of Enforcement vs. Manoj Kumar Agarwal"- also ground was raised that the Adjudicating Authority could not have decided the issue and should have referred the matter to the Competent Authority under the concerned Act. We reproduce portion of that judgment. In paras 19 to 22, we had observ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....075 of 2018 with liberty to file fresh Writ Petition but instead filed Miscellaneous Application before the NCLT, Chennai which passed ex-parte orders on 11th December, 2018 setting aside order of Government of Karnataka treating it in violation of moratorium under Section 14 of IBC. Adjudicating Authority directed Government of Karnataka to execute Supplement Lease Deeds. The Government filed Writ Petition No. 5002 OF 2019 before the High Court of Karnataka. Considering factor of ex-parte Order, the Hon'ble High Court remanded back the matter to NCLT, Chennai. The matter in M.A. No. 632 of 2018 was again heard by NCLT which passed order dated 3rd May, 2019 allowing the M.A. and rejected the defence of the Government of Karnataka. The Government was directed to execute Supplement Lease Deeds. The Government challenged this in the High Court again in Writ Petition No. 41029 of 2019. As the Resolution Professional moved for action of contempt, the Hon'ble High Court granted stay to the directions contained in the order of NCLT. The matter was then carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by RP and others. It is in the context of such facts that the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered juri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le to the Government would come within the meaning of the expression "operational debt" under Section 5(21), making the Government an "operational creditor" in terms of Section 5(20). The moment the dues to the Government are crystallised and what remains is only payment, the claim of the Government will have to be adjudicated and paid only in a manner prescribed in the resolution plan as approved by the Adjudicating Authority, namely the NCLT.) 38. It was argued by all the learned Senior Counsel on the side of the appellants that an Interim Resolution Professional is duty bound under Section 20(1) to preserve the value of the property of the Corporate Debtor and that the word "property" is interpreted in Section 3(27) to include even actionable claims as well as every description of interest, present or future or vested or contingent interest arising out of or incidental to property and that therefore the Interim Resolution Professional is entitled to move the NCLT for appropriate orders, on the basis that lease is a property right and NCLT has jurisdiction under Section 60(5) to entertain any claim by the Corporate Debtor. 39. But the said argument cannot be sustained for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o not use the expression "property". Another important aspect is that under Section 25 (2) (b) of IBC, 2016, the resolution professional is obliged to represent and act on behalf of the corporate debtor with third parties and exercise rights for the benefit of the corporate debtor in judicial, quasi-judicial and arbitration proceedings. Section 25(1) and 25(2)(b) reads as follows: "25. Duties of resolution professional - (1) It shall be the duty of the resolution professional to preserve and protect the assets of the corporate debtor, including the continued business operations of the corporate debtor. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the resolution professional shall undertake the following actions: (a)............. (b) represent and act on behalf of the corporate debtor with third parties, exercise rights for the benefit of the corporate debtor in judicial, quasi- judicial and arbitration proceedings." 41. This shows that wherever the corporate debtor has to exercise rights in judicial, quasi-judicial proceedings, the resolution professional cannot short-circuit the same and bring a claim before NCLT taking advantage of Section 60(5). 42. Therefore in the light....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hed on 13.03.2020. Section 11 of IBC relates to persons who are not entitled to make application. Explanation 2 was added to clarify that nothing in the Section shall prevent a Corporate Debtor referred to in clause (a) to (d) of the Section from initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against another Corporate Debtor. The constitutional validity of Section 11 was challenged in the matter of "Manish Kumar vs. Union of India" (2021) SCC Online SC 30 and in Paragraphs 265 of the Judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "265..........The intention of the Legislature was always to target the corporate debtor only insofar as it purported to prohibit application by the corporate debtor against itself, to prevent abuse of the provisions of the Code. It could never had been the intention of the Legislature to create an obstacle in the path of the corporate debtor, in any of the circumstances contained in Section 11, from maximizing its assets by trying to recover the liabilities due to it from others. Not only does it go against the basic common sense view but it would frustrate the very object of the Code, if a corporate debtor is prevented from invoking the provisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tor or a related party of such a person; or (b) a person with regard to whom the relevant investigating authority has, on the basis of material in its possession, reason to believe that he had abetted or conspired for the commission of the offence, and has submitted or filed a report or a complaint to the relevant statutory authority or Court: Provided that if a prosecution had been instituted during the corporate 7 insolvency resolution process against such corporate debtor, it shall stand discharged from the date of approval of the resolution plan subject to requirements of this sub-section having been fulfilled: Provided further that every person who was a "designated partner" as defined in clause (j) of section 2 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, or an "officer who is in default", as defined in clause (60) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013, or was in any manner incharge of, or responsible to the corporate debtor for the conduct of its business or associated with the corporate debtor in any manner and who was directly or indirectly involved in the commission of such offence as per the report submitted or complaint filed by the investigating authority, s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Please see Para 271 of the Judgment in Manish Kumar) by submitting that: "The stand of the Union, on the other hand, is as follows: Section 32A provides immunity to the corporate debtor and its property when there is approval of the resolution plan resulting in the change of management of control of corporate debtor. This is subject to the successful resolution applicant being not involved in the commission of the offence. Statutory basis has now given under Section 32A to the law laid down by this Court in the decision of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel(supra). This Court took the view therein that successful resolution applicant cannot be faced with undecided claim after its resolution plan has been accepted. The object is to ensure that a successful resolution applicant starts of on a fresh slate. The relevant extracts of the Statement of Objects and Reasons relied upon by the Union of India are as follows: "STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS xxx 2. A need was felt to give the highest priority in repayment to last mile funding to corporate debtors to prevent insolvency, in case the company goes into corporate insolvency resolution process or liquidation, to prevent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the NPAs on their balance sheet. At the same time, the Committee was also conscious that authorities are duty bound to penalize the commission of any offence, especially in cases involving substantial public interest. Thus, two competing concerns need to be balanced. 17.5. The Committee noted that the proceedings under the Code, which are designed to ensure maximization of value, generally require transfer of the corporate debtor to bona fide persons. In fact, Section 29A casts a wide net that disallows any undesirable person, related party or defaulting entity from acquiring a corporate debtor. Further, the Code provides for an open process, in which transfers either require approval of the Adjudicating Authority, or can be challenged before it. Thus, the CIRP typically culminates in a change of control to resolution applicants who are unrelated to the old management of the corporate debtor and step in to resolve the insolvency of the corporate debtor following the approval of a resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority". With regard to the actions against the property of the Corporate Debtor, Report of Insolvency Law Committee Para 17.9 to 17.11 read as under: "17....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioners appear to be that this provision is constitutionally anathema as it confers an undeserved immunity for the property which would be acquired with the proceeds of a crime. The provisions of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, the PMLA) are pressed before us. It is contended that the prohibition against proceeding against the property, affects the interest of stakeholders like the petitioners who may be allottees or other creditors. In short, it appears to be their contention that the provisions cannot stand the scrutiny of the Court when tested on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The provision is projected as being manifestly arbitrary. To screen valuable properties from being proceeded against, result in the gravest prejudice to the home buyers and other creditors. The stand of the Union of India is clear. The provision is born out of experience. The Code was enacted in the year 2016. In the course of its working, the experience it has produced, is that, resolution applicants are reticent in putting up a Resolution Plan, and even if it is forthcoming, it is not fair to the interest of the corporate debtor and the other stake holde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 35 to take into custody or control all the assets, property, effects and actionable claims of the Corporate Debtor. Explanation below sub-section (2) of Section 32A makes it clear that no action shall be taken against the property of the Corporate Debtor in relation to an offence committed prior to the commencement of CIRP and the action includes the attachment, seizure, retention or confiscation of such property under such law as may be applicable to the Corporate Debtor. If in liquidation, there is a change of control of Corporate Debtor to a person who was not a promoter or in management or in control of the Corporate Debtor or a related party of such person, the person will be protected. Thus, beforehand it cannot be claimed that protection of Section 32A is not available. 35. The reason why the attachment of property of Corporate Debtor cannot come in the way, we had dealt with in the judgment in the matter of "Directorate of Enforcement vs. Manoj Kumar Agarwal"- in paras 27 to 34 as under:- "Aims and Objects to be achieved in IBC 27. It is clear that Section 32A gives protection to the property of the Corporate Debtor in relation to an offence committed prior to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The explanation provides as to which assets shall not be included. (D). Then under Section 20 of IBC, there is responsibility of IRP to make every endeavour to protect and preserve the value of the property of the Corporate Debtor and manage the operations of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. When IRP is appointed as RP or is replaced by RP, even the RP has similar responsibility and powers as can be seen in Section 23 and 25. 30. Even on the stage of liquidation, under Section 34(2) of IBC all Powers of Directors etc. vest in the Liquidator. Under Section 35(1)(b), it is the duty of the liquidator to take into custody all the assets and properties of Corporate Debtor and also to carry on business of the Corporate Debtor for its beneficial liquidation as may be considered necessary by the Liquidator. Regulations to be complied Apart from these Acts, the CIRP Regulations when considered, Regulation 27 requires the RP that he shall within 7 days of the appointment but not later than 47th day from Insolvency Commencement day appoint two registered valuers to determine the fair value and the liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor in accordance with the regulation 35.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cies are taken care of by Section 32 A which has been recently added in IBC. If the first two contingencies happen, the normal laws would naturally get attracted as there would be a reversal to management going back to earlier hands. However, when CIRP is pending and progressing with target of Resolution, whether the attachment or seizure can be made or continued of the properties of Corporate Debtor is required to be considered. Active Attachments, seizure etc. obstruct acts as above 34. It appears to us that if the aims and objects of IBC are to be achieved, and maximisation of value is material so as to reach a resolution, above acts in time bound manner are to be performed and there cannot be obstructions of attachments and seizures existing. If the property is under attachment or seizure, or possession is taken over, keeping the corporate debtor a going concern would be serious issues. Without the properties in possession of IRP/RP getting valuation done during CIRP or even liquidation stage, would be issues. Attachment remaining in force would affect value of the property and prospective applicants may not respond in the manner in which they would, if the property is not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oes not decide on the criminality of the offence nor does it has power to impose penalty or impose punishment. 39. Taking aid from this, it appears to us that after the attachment when matter goes before the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA, proceeding before Adjudicating Authority for confirmation would be civil in nature. That being so, Section 14 of IBC would be attracted and applies. In present matter, the Provisional Attachment took place on 29th May, 2018 and corrigendum was issued on 14th June, 2018. The CIRP started on 16th July, 2018. Once moratorium was ordered, even if the Appellant moved the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA, further action before Adjudicating Authority under PMLA must be said to have been prohibited. Even if confirmation has been done as stated to have been done on 20th November, 2018, the same will have to be ignored. Section 14 of IBC will hit institution and continuation of proceedings before Adjudicating Authority under PMLA. The CIRP will of course not affect prosecution before Special Court, till contingencies under Section 32A of IBC occur. 40. In Judgment in the matter of "P. Mohanraj & Ors. Vs. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd." (2021) SCC On....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll stakeholders including alteration in the order of priority of payment of Government dues. Section 238 of IBC reads as under: "238. The provisions of this Code shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law." If this Section is perused, the provisions of this Code would have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained "in any other law" for the time being in force. Section 238 of IBC does not give over riding effect merely to Section 14. The other provisions also are material, and will have effect if there is anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Thus if the Authorities under PMLA on the basis of the attachment or seizure done or possession taken under the said Act resist handing over the properties of the Corporate Debtor to the IRP/RP/Liquidator the consequence of which will be hindrance for them to keep the Corporate Debtor a going concern till resolution takes place or liquidation proceedings are completed, the obstructions will have to be removed. We have already refe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd control the assets of the Corporate Debtor would be enforceable. At stage of liquidation, liquidator would be duty bound to take control of assets of Corporate Debtor. Any attachment to such extent under the State Act will have to give way to IBC, and obstruction has to be removed. 39. Coming to the facts of the present matter, while referring to the developments, we have noted and seen that there was attachment order issued by the Government of Maharashtra (Annexure A-6; Page 98) and under the title of name of Corporate Debtor, certain immovable properties were shown. The chart itself showed the names of the owners as Surjeet Singh and Inder Singh. Thus, properties of these individuals were attached. In fact, the Resolution Professional had while filing CA 332 of 2018 (Annexure-110) not sought removal of attachment which was ordered in Notification dated 31.03.2017. We have already reproduced the prayer which the Resolution Professional made in the application. His prayer was only to remove attachment of bank accounts as per letter dated 22.10.2018. In para 7 of the Application, the Resolution Professional had clearly mentioned that certain properties owned by the Directors/ p....