9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 1031 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - Attachment of assets of petitioner - case of the Petitioners was that the 180 days period after the PAO was passed, as prescribed under the PMLA, has expired - HELD THAT - There is no doubt that the issue relating to the expiry of 180 days and the manner in which the same would affect the PAO, is pending in Vikas WSP and Others Vs. Directorate Enforcement and Another, 2020 (11) TMI 629 - DELHI HIGH COURT . However, the same being a legal issue, there are various other submissions also which may have to be considered in the present matter, bearing in mind that the Petitioner Company has gone into insolvency and moratorium has been declared. Admittedly, the Tribunal under the PMLA is functioning and the Petitioner is free to approach the Tribunal under Section 26 of the PMLA. 15. The Petitioner has already filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which is stated to have been dismissed for non-prosecution - However, since the Petitioner was already before this Court and was granted interim protection, it is deemed appropriate to permit the Petitioner Company through the RP to approach the Appellate Tribunal for restoration of its appeal within the next two weeks. The Appellate Tribunal would proceed to hear the appeal in accordance with law. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
Challenge to impugned judgment and provisional attachment order under PMLA, expiry of 180 days period, insolvency proceedings affecting resolution process, impact of moratorium under IBC, non-functioning of Appellate Tribunal for PMLA appeals. Impugned Judgment and Attachment Order under PMLA: The petition challenged the judgment and Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) under PMLA attaching assets of the Petitioners. The properties attached were detailed, totaling Rs. 185.85 Crores. The Petitioners argued that the confirmation of attachment post the 180-day period was contrary to law. Forum Non-Conveniens and Remand: Initially dismissed on forum non-conveniens grounds, the matter was remanded to the High Court through a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 262/2022). Interim Order and Appellate Tribunal Jurisdiction: An interim order restrained further steps under PMLA Section 8, considering the absence of an Appellate Tribunal. The order also highlighted the impact of a previous decision and directed parties to maintain status quo on attached properties. Insolvency Proceedings and Moratorium under IBC: The company, now in insolvency proceedings, had a moratorium declared by NCLT under IBC Section 14. A Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed to manage affairs. RP argued that the attachment hindered the resolution process and sought to vacate the interim order. Non-Functioning of Appellate Tribunal and Legal Challenges: Petitioners highlighted the non-functioning of the Appellate Tribunal for PMLA appeals, necessitating the writ petition. The ED contended that the attachment predates the moratorium and is valid. Legal issues, including the impact of the 180-day rule and insolvency, were under consideration. Court Directions and Disposal: The Court permitted the Petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal for appeal restoration and stay application. The interim order was to continue until the Tribunal's decision. Any ruling on the 180-day rule or IBC applicability would be binding. The case was disposed of without expressing views on the merits, with pending applications canceled.
|
