Case Law Details
Canara Bank Vs Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited (NCLT Hyderabad)
NCLT Hyderabad held that provisional order of attachment u/s. 5(1) of the PMLA of the properties of the corporate debtor covered under the approved resolution plan would not wipe of the protection available to such properties u/s. 32A of I&B Code.
Facts- The present application is filed by SREI Multiple Assets Investment Trust – Vision India Fund, the successful Resolution Application of Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited mainly praying that declaration that the assets and/or properties of the Corporate Debtor which form part of the Resolution Plan cannot be attached by the Respondent No. 1 (i.e. Enforcement Directorate) by the order purportedly issued u/s. 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 after approval of Resolution Plan.
Conclusion- On careful examination of the ‘impact’ of the impugned provisional order of attachment on the implementation of the approved resolution plan by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) and taking into consideration the ‘clean slate’ theory propounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court, besides the very object behind introducing section 32A by way of an amendment in I&B Code, in our considered view, the power of this Tribunal to interfere with the “impugned measure” is well within the teeth of section 60 (5)(c) of IB Code.
Held that, all the assets and properties of the corporate debtor which formed part of the approved resolution plan for the resolution of the insolvency of the corporate debtor, are immune from the provisional order of attachment made vide order No.1 of 2020, ECIR No.CIR/HYZO/02/2015 dated 15.10.2020, under section 5(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002” the Bench concluded.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
