TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 15
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.23054 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.24236 of 2022 in W.P.No.25278 of 2022 - -<br>PMLA<br>Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.Prakash And Honourable Mr. Justice N.Anand Venkatesh For the Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel for Mr.B.Sathish Sundar For the Respondents : Mr.P.Siddharthan, Special Public Prosecutor [ED] [R1 & R2], Mr.AL.Somaiyaji, Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Sundrarajan [R3] COMMON ORDER N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. The issue involved in both these writ petitions are common and hence, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common order. 2. W.P.No.25278 of 2022 has been filed by the Indian Bank challenging the provisional attachment order of the first respondent dated 30.06.2022 passed u/s.5(1) of the Preventi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o.23054 of 2022 and there was also diversion of funds and hence, a complaint came to be lodged against them on 25.04.2022 before the CBI and a First Information Report came to be registered in Crime No.RC0692022E0009 for offences u/s.120-B and 420 IPC and Section 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 6. The First Information Report that was registered by the CBI was taken note of by the Enforcement Directorate and it was taken up for investigation in ECIR/CEZO-1/45/2022 dated 26.05.2022. 7. A provisional attachment order came to be passed on 30.06.2022 by the first respondent in exercise of powers u/s.5(1) of the PMLA r/w Rule 3 of the PMLA Rules. Thereafter, a complaint came to be filed before the second responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k, the provisional attachment order passed by the first respondent and the proceedings initiated for confirmation of the provisional attachment order by the second respondent are unsustainable and must be held to be non-est in the eye of law. 10. To substantiate the above submissions, the following judgments were relied upon: (a) Indian Bank, represented by its Chief Manager v. Government of India [2012 (4) CTC 225]; (b)The Government of India v. Indian Bank and another [W.A.Nos.2614 and 2615 of 2022, dated 13.09.2021]; (c) HDFC Bank Limited v. Government of India [CDJ 2021 Bihar HC 249]; and (d)Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi v. Axis Bank and others [2019 SCC OnLine Del 7854]. 11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tinct from the purposes of the three other enactments viz. RDBA, SARFAESI Act and Insolvency Code, the latter cannot prevail over the former. There is no inconsistency. The purpose, the Crl.Appeal No.143/2018 & others Page 84 of 105 text and context are different. This court thus rejects the argument of prevalence of the said laws over PMLA." (Para 147, Page - 83) (b) "In view of the conclusions reached as above, rejecting the argument of prevalence of RDBA, SARFAESI Act and Insolvency Code over PMLA, the said laws (or similar other laws, some referred to above) must co-exist, each to be construed and enforced in harmony, without one being in derogation of the other ...." (Para 148, Page - 84) (c) "An order of attachment u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... OnLine SC 929] and hence, the provisional attachment order passed by the first respondent does not suffer from lack of jurisdiction. The provisional attachment order has been placed before the second respondent for confirmation u/s.8(3) of the PMLA. The petitioners have also been put on notice by the second respondent and the petitioners have put forward their objections both on facts and on law. The issue as to whether there can be an order of attachment under the PMLA over a property, in which a secured creditor has a prior interest, can always be raised before the second respondent since the second respondent is a quasi judicial authority exercising the powers of adjudication. 17. The alternative remedy is only a self-imposed restric....