9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 717 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - provisional attachment of property - despite the provisional attachment order having been passed, the Resolution Plan was approved by NCLT - allegation of the Petitioners is that Respondent No.3- State Bank of India (SBI) was fully aware of the provisional attachment order but still did not inform the Petitioner or other bidders - HELD THAT - The Court is informed that no appeals have been filed challenging the final approval of the resolution plan dated 29th September, 2021. In effect, the Petitioner No. 2 has stepped into the management of the Petitioner No. 1 company. The Petitioners had deposited a sum of Rs.28 crores, which was kept at the disposal of the Committee of Creditors and has also been distributed amongst the various creditors and lenders - The issue, that has obviously arisen today, is that despite the payment of Rs. 28 crores, the title deeds of the land continued to remain with the Bank in view of the fact that the attachment by the ED took place subsequent to the commencement of CIRP. Ideally, the Bank ought to have informed the Petitioner no.2 of the PAO, when it acquired knowledge in October 2021, as the amounts were deposited by the Petitioner no.2 only in March 2022, which for inexplicable reasons, it did not. Considering the ED s instructions that have been communicated to the Court, and the Petitioners willingness to deposit a sum of Rs. 3.01 crores, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioners shall be permitted to challenge the PAO order dated 25th August 2021 and the confirmation order dated 26th May 2022 before the PMLA Appellate Tribunal, within four weeks. The legal issues raised in this petition have not been adjudicated upon by this Court. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, ld. Counsel shall inform the Petitioners of the name of the official with whom the Petitioners shall coordinate for the submission of the FDR of Rs.3.01 crores. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved: Impugning an order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 regarding provisional attachment of property during insolvency proceedings.
Summary: 1. The petition challenged an order passed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, regarding the provisional attachment of property during insolvency proceedings before the NCLT. 2. The resolution plan submitted by one of the petitioners was approved by the Committee of Creditors, but a provisional attachment order was passed on the property of another petitioner by the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA. 3. Despite the attachment order, the resolution plan was approved by the NCLT, and a substantial amount was deposited by the petitioner for securing the company's rights over the property, leading to a dispute with the State Bank of India (SBI). 4. The SBI claimed it acquired knowledge of the attachment order after the insolvency proceedings had commenced, and the resolution plan was approved, leading to a stalemate over the release of title deeds. 5. To resolve the conflict, the court directed the petitioners to challenge the attachment order before the PMLA Appellate Tribunal and deposit a specified amount with the Enforcement Directorate, following which the title deeds would be released to the petitioners. 6. The court disposed of the petition and all pending applications based on the agreed terms between the parties and the directions issued by the court.
|
