Case Law Details
Palaniappan Vs Joint Director (NCLT Chennai)
The case of Palaniappan Vs Joint Director (NCLT Chennai) raises significant jurisdictional questions regarding the appropriateness of the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to decide on the revocation of attachments made by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). This article delves into the details of the case and analyzes the NCLT judgment on the matter.
Detailed Analysis
The applicant, the Liquidator of M/s. Nathella Sampath Jewelry Private Limited, sought relief from the NCLT against the provisional attachment order made by the ED. The liquidator argued that the attachment hindered the smooth functioning of the liquidation process as mandated by the IBC. However, the NCLT examined the timeline of events and highlighted that the attachment order was issued after the initiation of the CIRP, during the moratorium period.
The NCLT emphasized that the attachment order was made under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which has its own set of rules and procedures for appeal. The resolution professional had already lodged an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal (PMLA) regarding the attachment. The NCLT reiterated that the IBC deals solely with matters pertaining to corporate insolvency resolution and liquidation proceedings and is not the appropriate forum for addressing issues under the PMLA.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
