Mr. Anil Kohli vs Directorate Of Enforcement

(Arising against the impugned order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in Misc. Application No. 129 of 2018 in Company Petition No. 1138/I&BC/NCLT/MB/MAH/2017)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. Anil Kohli Resolution Professional for Dunar Foods Ltd.

Registered office: Geetanjali Apartment, 1st floor, 8B Middleton Street, Kolkata, ...Appellant West Bengal. Email id: investor.india@akzonobel.com

Versus

Directorate of Enforcement Through Deputy Director

Add:- 4th Floor, Kaiser-1, Hind Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, ...Respondent No. 1

Mumbai - 400001.

Shri Amit Gupta, Successful Resolution Applicant ...Respondent No. 2 of Dunar Foods Ltd.

Present:

For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli & Ms. Ridhima Mehrotra, Advocates.

For Respondents: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Advocate for R-1/ED.

Mr. Himanshu Dubey, Ms. Shruti Manchanda, Advocates for R-2.

Cont'd..../ -2-

J U D G M EN T (3rd July, 2025)

INDEVAR PANDEY, MEMBER (T)

This appeal arises from the impugned order dated 21.05.2018, passed

by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench ('Adjudicating

Authority') in Miscellaneous Application No. 129 of 2018 in Company

Petition No. 1138/I&BC/NCLT/MB/MAH/2017. The appeal has been filed

under Section 61(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short

'Code') by Mr. Anil Kohli, the Resolution Professional (RP) for Dunar Foods

Limited (Corporate Debtor) challenging the refusal of the Adjudicating

Authority to direct the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to release the

provisionally attached assets of the Corporate Debtor.

2. The Appellant/RP asserts that the continued attachment of properties

under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) violates the

moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC and frustrates the CIRP objectives.

This appeal raises substantial questions about the conflict between two

central economic legislations viz. Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code 2016 and

the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Brief facts of the case

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) Dunar Foods Ltd. is a company engaged in the business of

manufacturing, processing, and exporting basmati rice. It had availed

substantial credit facilities from a consortium of banks led by the State

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -3-

Bank of India (SBI), along with Canara Bank, Bank of India, and other

lenders. At the time of filing the Sec 7 petition under the Code in on

27.06.2017, the total dues owed by the Corporate Debtor to the Banks

was Rs. 758,73,62,546/-.

(ii) Following continuing defaults in repayment obligations, Dunar Foods

Ltd.'s accounts were classified as Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) by SBI

and other lenders on 26.08.2014 and the Financial Creditor/Applicant

Bank issued the recall notice on 08.12.2014 to the Corporate Debtor to

pay its dues.

(iii) The Financial Creditor/ Applicant Bank also issued the notice under

Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 25.02.2016 on behalf of all

the banks as lead bank of the consortium to the corporate debtor to

repay the entire dues of Rs. 795,60,25,675.16 as on 31.01.2016

including further interest, penal interest, incidental expenses and all

costs, charges and expenses.

(iv) In view of the defaults, the State Bank of India filed an application

under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before

the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench. The case

was registered as CP No. 1138/I&BC/NCLT/MB/MAH/2017. On

22.12.2017, the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, admitted the insolvency

application. It initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

(CIRP) against Dunar Foods Ltd. under Section 7 of the IBC. In the same

order, Mr. Anil Kohli was appointed as the Interim Resolution

Professional (IRP), a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC was

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -4-

imposed with effect from that date, and the IRP was directed to issue

public announcements under Section 15 IBC and Regulation 6 of the

IBBI (CIRP) Regulations.

(v) In compliance with the statutory mandate, the IRP published public

announcements on 06.01.2018 in The Financial Express (English) and

on 07.01.2018 in Jansatta (Hindi). These announcements formally

declared the commencement of CIRP and called upon all creditors of

Dunar Foods Ltd. to submit their claims within the prescribed time.

(vi) Meanwhile, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), under the Ministry of

Finance, Government of India, had initiated investigation under the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) against M/s PD

Agroprocessors Pvt. Ltd., which is associate company of Dunar Foods

Ltd. And traced the flow of alleged tainted funds to the Corporate

Debtor. The ED registered ECIR No. ECIR/14/MZO/2013/PD

AGRO/1733 based on scheduled offences under the Indian Penal Code

and Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), alleging that large

export advances received by Dunar Foods Ltd. from PD Agroprocessors

Pvt. Ltd. were proceeds of crime.

(vii) Consequently, on 26.12.2017, the Deputy Director of the Directorate of

Enforcement, Mumbai Zone, issued Provisional Attachment Order

(PAO) No. 12/2017 under Section 5(1) of the PMLA, attaching various

immovable and movable assets of Dunar Foods Ltd. The total value of

attached assets amounted to Rs. 177,33,94,800/-.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -5-

(viii) On 14.02.2018, the RP addressed written communications to the

Directorate of Enforcement requesting immediate de-attachment of the

provisionally attached properties. He explained that the moratorium

under Section 14 of the IBC barred all proceedings including

enforcement actions like attachment against the corporate debtor. He

further referred to Section 238 of the IBC, which provides the Code with

overriding effect over any other inconsistent law. However, the ED did

not provide any relief or respond favorably.

(ix) On 16.02.2018, in view of the deadlock, the RP filed Miscellaneous

Application No. 129 of 2018 before the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, under

Section 60(5) of the IBC. The application sought, inter alia, (a) quash

the provisional attachment order dated 26.12.2017 being PAO No.

122017 in F.No. ECIR/14/MZO/2013/PD Agro/1733, and (b) a

direction to the Directorate of Enforcement to recall the provisional

attachment order against the assets of the Corporate Debtor during the

CIRP or till the time moratorium is in effect.

(x) After hearing both parties, the NCLT, Mumbai Bench passed the

impugned order dated 21.05.2018, whereby it dismissed the RP's

application. The NCLT held that the Provisional Attachment Order

issued by the ED under Section 5(1) of the PMLA did not fall within the

scope of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. It further opined

that PMLA is a special penal statute and has a distinct adjudicatory

mechanism under Sections 5 to 8 of PMLA. Therefore, unless and until

the attachment was set aside by the PMLA Adjudicating Authority, the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -6-

NCLT had no jurisdiction to direct its release. It concluded that the IBC

could not override PMLA proceedings in the absence of express

legislative exclusion.

(xi) The Competent Adjudicating Authority of the Prevention of Money

laundering Act 2002 by its order dated 11.06.2018 under section 8

confirmed the provisional attachment order.

(xii) Aggrieved by aforesaid decision of the NCLT, the RP preferred the

present appeal under Section 61(1) of the Code. The RP has submitted

that the NCLT has failed to appreciate the legislative scheme of the IBC,

particularly the overriding effect granted to it under Section 238, and

the mandatory nature of the moratorium under Section 14. It was

contended that the continuation of attachment not only violated

statutory protection but also rendered the CIRP futile, causing

irreparable harm to creditors and defeating the purpose of resolution.

(xiii) Subsequent to filing of this appeal, NCLT Mumbai vide its order dated

26.11.2019 in M.A. No. 2166 of 2019 approved the Resolution Plan

submitted by the Respondent No. 2/ Successful Resolution Applicant

(SRA), which was further amended vide order dated 27.01.2020 and

appointed Mr. Anil Kohli (erstwhile Resolution Professional of the

Corporate Debtor) as a Monitoring Professional to Monitor the

implementation of the Resolution Plan.

(xiv) The Resolution Professional/ Appellant herein, has sought the following

reliefs:

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -7-

a) setting aside of the impugned order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the

NCLT;

b) a direction to the Directorate of Enforcement to release all

provisionally attached properties valued at Rs. 177,33,94,800/-;

c) a declaration that the IBC has overriding effect over the PMLA under

Section 238, and that the attachment violates the moratorium under

Section 14; and

d) permission to use the attached properties for keeping the corporate

debtor operational and ensuring a successful resolution under the

IBC framework.

Submissions of the Appellant

4. The Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the present appeal has

been preferred under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,

2016 ('IBC' or the 'Code') against the order dated 19.05.2018 passed by the

Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench ("Adjudicating

Authority"), in MA No. 129 of 2018. The Appellant, who is the duly appointed

Resolution Professional ("RP") for the Corporate Debtor, Dunar Foods Ltd.,

had approached the Adjudicating Authority seeking quashing or recall of the

Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) dated 26.12.2017 passed by the

Directorate of Enforcement ("Respondent") under Section 5(1) of the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ("PMLA").

5. Ld. Counsel stated that the said PAO was passed just four days after

the CIRP had commenced on 22.12.2017, and while the moratorium under

Section 14 of the IBC was in full force. The Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority,

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -8-

while disposing of the Appellant's application, declined to lift the attachment

and erroneously held that the attachment was not inconsistent with the CIRP

as long as it did not obstruct the resolution process. The present appeal

challenges the legality and propriety of that finding.

6. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that Section 14(1)(a) of

the IBC mandates a moratorium on the institution or continuation of suits or

proceedings, including execution and enforcement actions, against the

Corporate Debtor upon initiation of CIRP. This statutory moratorium applies

to all forums--civil, criminal, quasi-judicial, or administrative--and is aimed

at preserving the assets of the Corporate Debtor during the resolution

process.

7. Ld. Counsel asserted that the PAO dated 26.12.2017 was passed in

breach of the moratorium imposed by the Adjudicating Authority vide order

dated 22.12.2017. The attachment directly affects the Corporate Debtor's

assets and impairs their availability for resolution under the IBC. Such an

action is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the moratorium provision.

8. Ld. Counsel relied on various Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgments

including 'Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. v. Hotel Gaudavan

Pvt. Ltd., [Civil Appeal No. 16929 of 2017]', wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court

held unequivocally that the moratorium bars all proceedings, including

coercive measures against the Corporate Debtor. Similarly, in 'Rajendra K.

Bhutta v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, [Civil Appeal

No. 12248 of 2018]', the Apex Court reiterated that asset preservation during

CIRP is fundamental and actions disrupting asset control are impermissible.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -9-

9. The Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that Section 238 of the

IBC is a comprehensive non-obstante clause, which gives overriding effect to

its provisions notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other

law. The said provision ensures that the objectives of the Code are not

frustrated by contrary provisions in other enactments, including the PMLA.

10. Ld. Counsel stated that in 'Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank,

[(2017) SCC OnLine SC 1025]', the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Section

238 must be given full effect to ensure that the Code achieves its legislative

purpose. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed, including by this

Hon'ble Tribunal in 'Directorate of Enforcement v. Manoj Kumar Agarwal &

Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 575 of 2019', where it was held

that when there is a conflict between the IBC and the PMLA, the IBC will

prevail.

11. The Counsel further submitted that in 'Solidaire India Ltd. v. Fairgrowth

Financial Services Ltd., [AIR 2001 SC 958]', the Hon'ble Supreme Court held

that where two enactments contain non-obstante clauses, the later in point

of time will override the earlier. Since, the IBC was enacted subsequent to the

PMLA, its non-obstante clause has superior legislative intent. Thus, counsel

for appellant contended that any inconsistency between the IBC and PMLA

must be resolved in favour of the IBC, especially in the context of moratorium

and resolution.

12. The Counsel for the Appellant also submits that the objective of the IBC,

as stated in its Preamble and consistently reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, is to maximize the value of the Corporate Debtor's assets and to ensure

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -10-

a time-bound insolvency resolution. The act of attaching the Corporate

Debtor's properties during CIRP frustrates this objective.

13. It was the submission of Ld. Counsel that the continuation of

attachment, renders the Corporate Debtor's assets unusable and unsellable,

thereby reducing the commercial viability of the resolution plan and

disincentivizing resolution applicants. The assets, which ought to be

monetized for the benefit of creditors, remain locked under the control of the

ED, despite the statutory requirement of asset availability for resolution.

14. Ld. Counsel submitted that once a resolution plan has been approved,

the assets of the Corporate Debtor must be allowed to flow into the new

management without encumbrances. Maintaining the attachment post-

approval defeats the commercial expectations of the Successful Resolution

Applicant and could render the entire CIRP futile.

15. The Counsel for the Appellant stated that the introduction of Section

32A to the IBC has significantly altered the legal landscape by providing

statutory immunity to the Corporate Debtor and its assets from prosecution

and attachment for prior offences, provided the resolution plan has been

approved and management has changed hands.

16. He further submitted that this provision was upheld by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in 'Manish Kumar v. Union of India, [W.P. (C) No. 26 of 2020]',

where it was held that Section 32A serves a vital purpose of ensuring that

bona fide resolution applicants are not deterred from investing in insolvent

companies due to past wrongdoings.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -11-

17. It was submitted that in 'JSW Steel Ltd. v. Mahender Kumar Khandelwal

& Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 957 of 2019', this Hon'ble

Tribunal held that ED and other enforcement agencies cannot attach the

assets of the Corporate Debtor, once the resolution plan is approved and

control has shifted. Similarly, the Delhi High Court in 'Rajiv Chakraborty, RP

of EIEL v. Directorate of Enforcement, W.P. (C) No. 9531/2020', clarified that

the immunity under Section 32A applies after approval and prevents

enforcement actions under PMLA.

18. Ld. Counsel thus submitted that the Respondent has no authority to

continue with or seek enforcement of attachment once the statutory

conditions under Section 32A are satisfied.

19. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant clarified that the instant appeal is limited

to the challenge of the validity of the Provisional Attachment Order in the

context of IBC provisions, in particular Section 14 (moratorium) and Section

238 (overriding effect). It is distinct from any proceedings pending before the

Appellate Tribunal under PMLA, which concern the substantive legality and

confirmation of the PAO under the PMLA framework.

20. He further submitted that there is no duplication of relief or forum

shopping, as the reliefs sought in the present appeal pertain only to the

jurisdictional inconsistency and statutory conflict between IBC and PMLA.

Both forums are approached under different legal bases and arise from

separate causes of action.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -12-

21. Ld. Counsel further asserted that it is incorrect to contend that the

Appellant is attempting to undermine the PMLA adjudicatory process by

invoking the IBC framework.

22. Ld. Counsel further submitted that during the pendency of this appeal

the Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor was approved by the Adjudicating

Authority based on the application No. M.A. No. 2166 of 2019 on 26.11.2019.

However, some inadvertent errors had crept in the order dated 26.11.2019,

these were subsequently rectified by the adjudicating Authority vide order

dated 27.01.2021.

23. In view of the changes subsequent to filing of the appeal Ld. Counsel

sought the following reliefs:

(i) Declare that the provisions of the IBC, particularly Section 14 and

Section 238, override the PMLA to the extent of any inconsistency;

(ii) Direct that the Corporate Debtor and its assets shall not be subject

to any prosecution or attachment post-approval of the Resolution

Plan under Section 32A of the Code; and

(iii) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may deem

fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Submissions of the Respondent No.1 (Directorate of Enforcement)

24. The Ld. Counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement/Respondent

submitted that the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and this

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -13-

Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) do not possess jurisdiction to adjudicate

upon or interfere with provisional or confirmed attachment orders issued

under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ("PMLA"). The exclusive

jurisdiction to entertain any grievance or challenge to such attachment orders

lies with the authorities and appellate forums constituted under the PMLA,

namely the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8 and the Appellate Tribunal

under Section 26.

25. Ld. Counsel stated that in the present matter, the provisional

attachment order dated 26.12.2017 was passed under Section 5(1) of the

PMLA by the competent authority, which was subsequently confirmed by the

Adjudicating Authority under Section 8(3) of the PMLA on 11.06.2018.

Therefore, the only statutory remedy available to the Appellant was to prefer

an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA in accordance with

Section 26 thereof.

26. Ld. Counsel cited the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Embassy

Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., [2019 SCC

OnLine SC 1542]', wherein the SC has categorically held that the jurisdiction

of the NCLT does not extend to matters involving public law, criminal law, or

administrative actions taken under other statutes that fall outside the IBC's

domain. The Court observed that a resolution professional cannot bypass the

special statutory forums provided under other enactments and must pursue

remedies under the designated mechanisms. The observations in paras 41 to

43 of the Embassy judgment make it abundantly clear that even if CIRP is

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -14-

pending, NCLT cannot usurp the jurisdiction conferred on other statutory

forums.

27. The Counsel for the Respondent further submitted that once the

Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) dated 26.12.2017 was confirmed by the

Adjudicating Authority under PMLA on 11.06.2018, it acquired a degree of

finality under the scheme of the PMLA. The confirmation order is a quasi-

judicial determination of the legitimacy of the attachment and its nexus to

alleged money laundering activity. The Resolution Professional's attempt to

challenge this attachment before the NCLT, without appealing the

confirmation order under Section 26 of PMLA, amounts to circumvention of

due process.

28. Ld. Counsel submitted that the Resolution Professional cannot be

permitted to re-litigate issues which have already been decided by the

competent Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA, especially when such

confirmation order has not been assailed before the proper appellate forum.

The principle of statutory finality, judicial discipline, and the hierarchy of

forums demand that the challenge be directed to the PMLA Appellate Tribunal

and not before this Hon'ble Tribunal.

29. The Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Prevention of

Money Laundering Act, 2002 is a special legislation enacted to address the

serious menace of money laundering and to provide for confiscation of

property derived from or involved in money laundering. The PMLA is a self-

contained code with an independent mechanism for investigation,

attachment, adjudication, and confiscation of tainted assets. It contains its

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -15-

own set of procedural and substantive safeguards and is designed to protect

the integrity of the financial system and fulfill India's international obligations

under FATF (Financial Action Task Force).

30. Ld. Counsel stated that the provisions of the PMLA operate in a separate

and distinct field from the IBC. While the IBC is aimed at restructuring and

reviving insolvent companies, the PMLA is focused on tracing and confiscating

criminal proceeds. These two statutes operate in parallel, and neither negates

the other. Importantly, where assets are identified as "proceeds of crime," they

do not form part of the asset pool available for insolvency resolution under

the IBC, as such assets are liable to be confiscated by the State.

31. Ld. Counsel further stated that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 'Deputy

Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. Axis Bank & Ors., [2019 SCC OnLine Del

7854]', clearly held that IBC cannot override PMLA in cases involving proceeds

of crime. The Court ruled that while the IBC and PMLA serve different

objectives, in cases involving tainted assets, the provisions of PMLA must

prevail, as they serve an equally compelling and constitutionally valid public

interest.

32. Ld. Counsel further cited the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in 'Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement, [(2015) 16 SCC 1]', wherein

Hon'ble SC has held that the PMLA is an important tool to prevent economic

offences and that courts must give it due deference when construing

overlapping legislative schemes.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -16-

33. The Counsel for the Respondent further stated that Section 32A of the

IBC, introduced in 2020, provides immunity to the Corporate Debtor from

prosecution and property attachment in certain conditions. However, this

immunity is conditional and prospective. The section comes into effect only

after the resolution plan has been approved and control of the Corporate

Debtor has shifted to a new management unconnected with prior offences.

34. In the present case, the attachment of the Corporate Debtor's properties

by the ED occurred on 26.12.2017 and was confirmed on 11.06.2018, well

before the approval of the resolution plan in November 2019. Therefore,

Section 32A cannot be invoked retrospectively to invalidate actions lawfully

taken by the ED in the performance of its statutory duty under PMLA. The

assets were already in the custody of law under the PMLA framework before

the CIRP reached the resolution stage.

35. Ld. Counsel claimed that this legal position is supported by

'P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24', wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the preventive and punitive objectives of PMLA

and declined to dilute its strict application in the face of overlapping legal

provisions. Furthermore, in 'Varrsana Ispat Ltd. v. Deputy Director, Directorate

of Enforcement, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 493 of 2018', this

Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, while dealing with similar facts, held that if the

attachment under PMLA is pre-CIRP and confirmed, then such action is

outside the purview of IBC interference.

36. The Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the invocation of

Section 14 by the Appellant to shield assets that are alleged proceeds of crime

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -17-

is legally untenable. The moratorium under IBC is designed to preserve the

economic value of the Corporate Debtor's bona fide assets for resolution--not

to protect properties acquired through criminal activity or subject to

attachment under a special statute like the PMLA.

37. He stated that to allow a blanket application of moratorium even in

cases where tainted assets are involved would frustrate the objectives of the

PMLA and encourage corporate fraudsters to launder money and then seek

shelter under the insolvency framework. Such an interpretation would

undermine public trust in both statutes. It has been held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in 'Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation,

[(2013) 7 SCC 439]', the courts must prevent the misuse of legal and judicial

mechanisms by economic offenders seeking to escape accountability under

the guise of procedural or jurisdictional protections.

38. The Counsel for the Respondent further submitted that preventing

money laundering and confiscating proceeds of crime are of paramount

national and international importance. India, as a signatory to the United

Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) and a

member of the FATF, is bound to enforce stringent anti-money laundering

laws. The IBC cannot be used as a safe haven to subvert such international

obligations or the domestic public interest underlying the PMLA. Allowing

Corporate Debtors to claim immunity from attachment under the PMLA by

merely undergoing CIRP would severely impair the credibility and

effectiveness of anti-money laundering enforcement in India. It would create

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -18-

an unintended loophole in the legal framework and embolden future financial

offenders.

39. In the end he sought dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and

merit.

Submission of Respondent No.2 - (Successful Resolution Applicant)

40. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.2/Successful Resolution Applicant

stated that during the pendency of the appeal, the resolution plan submitted

by Respondent No.2 was approved and Mr Anil Kohli erstwhile RP of the

Corporate debtor was appointed as a monitoring professional to monitor the

implementation of the resolution plan. This Tribunal vide its order dated

20.10.2022 allowed the prayer of appellant to implead the SRA in this appeal.

41. Ld. Counsel submitted that the NCLT, Mumbai while approving the

resolution plan vide Order date 26.11.2019 was pleased to hold that the

Respondent No.2/SRA shall not be held responsible for any statutory

outstanding dues and other claims prior to the period of commencement of

CIRP. Paragraph No.2-23 of the said Order dated 26.11.2019 are reproduced

herein below:

"21. As far as question of waiver of outstanding dues and other

claims as on date of approval of the Resolution Plan is concerned,

the Resolution Applicant, who will step into the shoes of

corporate debtor subsequent to approval of Resolution Plan by

the Bench shall not be held responsible for any outstanding

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -19-

statutory dues and other claims for the period before the

Commencement of CIRP.

22. The Resolution Plan is binding on the Corporate Debtor and

other stakeholders involved so that revival of the Debtor

Company shall come into force with immediate effect and the

"Moratorium" imposed under section 14 shall cease to have any

effect henceforth. The Resolution Professional shall submit the

records collected during the commencement of the Proceedings to

the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India for their record and

also return to the Resolution Applicant or New Promoters.

Certified Copy of this Order be issued on demand to the

concerned parties, upon due compliance. That liberty is hereby

granted for moving any Miscellaneous Application if required in

connection with implementation of this Resolution Plan. That in

respect of stepping by the New Promoters/Resolution Applicant

into the shoes of the erstwhile Company and taking over the

business, the provisions of Companies Act, 2013 shall be

applicable and because of this reason a copy of this Order is to

be submitted in the Office of the Registrar of Companies,

Mumbai.

23. The RP is further directed to handover all records,

premises/factories/documents to Resolution Applicant to

finalize the further line of action required for starting of the

operation. The Resolution Applicant shall have access to all the

records/premises/factories/documents through Resolution

Professional to finalize the further line of action required for

starting of the operation."

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -20-

42. Ld. Counsel submits that the attachments and the encumbrances have

not been removed till date, which has caused serious prejudiced to them as

they have paid the entire amount and the Resolution Plan. He prays for

release of assets/properties of the corporate debtor to be transferred to the

Respondent No.2 without any fetters.

43. Ld. Counsel further submitted that they have made complete payment

under the Resolution Plan and have also deposited interest @ of RBI base rate

plus 2% from the period 27.01.2020 to 15.01.2021 due to delayed payment.

44. Ld. Counsel submitted that this Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated

10.06.2022 in CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 445 of 2021 has clarified that the SRA is to

get a clean slate and all dues of the Corporate Debtor prior to the

commencement of the CIRP stand extinguished. This Hon'ble Appellate

Tribunal also examined the terms of the resolution plan at Para 29 of the said

order dated 10.06.2022 stating the SRA is entitled to get all the assets of the

Corporate Debtor free from any encumbrances and would be available for use

by the SRA without any fetters or brevity and clarity.

45. Ld. Counsel submits that in spite of clear order there is still attachment

on assets/properties of the Corporate Debtor by the Respondent No.1. Despite

fulfilment of all the requirements/conditions as envisaged under Section 32A

of the Code, the assets/properties of the Corporate Debtor have not been

transferred to SRA without any attachment, encumbrances, Lien etc. till date.

In support of his submission, the Respondent has cited the following

judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts:

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -21-

Judgments:

(i) Essar Steel India Ltd. Committee of Creditors v. Satish Kumar

Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531: Para 66-67.

(ii) Manish Kumar vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (19.01.2021 SC):

2021 5 SSC 1, Para 246-247, 253-259

(iii) Arya Constructions through Mr. Amit Singh Yadav versus Punjab

National Bank Ltd; W.P (C) No. 10768/2024, Hon'ble High Court

of Delhi, Para 19,20,23

(iv) Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association &

Ors. v. NBCC (India) Ltd. & Ors, (2022) SCC 401, Para 122

(v) V Hotels Limited Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Ors, Order

Dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay,

Writ Petition (L) No. 32216 of 2024, Para 18-20.

(vi) Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited versus Edelweiss

Assets Reconstruction Company 2021 SCC online SC 313, Para

95(I)

(vii) Shiv Charan and Ors. versus Adjudicating Authority under the

prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Department of

Revenue And Ors, Writ Petition (L) No. 9943, Hon'ble High Court

of Judicature at Bombay, Para- 11, 14, 52.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -22-

46. Summing up his arguments Ld. Counsel state that in view of aforesaid

facts and settled position of law as seen from cited judgments this Appellate

Tribunal may allow the appeal and direct unencumbered/attachment

free/Lien free transfer of properties of the Corporate Debtor to the Respondent

No.2/SRA.

Analysis and findings

47. We have heard the detailed submissions advanced by the Learned

Counsels for both the Appellant and the Respondents. We have gone through

voluminous records and written statements of the parties. Based on the same

we frame the following 3 issues for determination:

I. Whether the provisional attachment of assets by the Directorate of

Enforcement (ED) under the PMLA violates the moratorium imposed

under Section 14 of the IBC;

II. Whether the IBC, by virtue of Section 238, overrides the PMLA in case

of inconsistency, particularly in the context of resolution processes

involving tainted assets; and

III. Whether the NCLT/NCLAT possess jurisdiction to issue directions

affecting attachment orders passed under the PMLA and confirmed by

the PMLA Adjudicating Authority.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -23-

ISSUE I: Whether the provisional attachment of assets by the Directorate

of Enforcement (ED) under the PMLA violates the moratorium imposed

under Section 14 of the IBC.

48. Section 14(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 provides

that upon the commencement of CIRP, there shall be a moratorium

prohibiting, inter alia, the institution or continuation of suits or proceedings

against the corporate debtor, including execution of any judgment or order.

The object of the moratorium is to maintain the status quo of the debtor's

assets, protect the value of the debtor's estate, and ensure that Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process can take place without disruption by individual

enforcement actions.

49. The Appellant's submission is that the ED's issuance of a Provisional

Attachment Order (PAO) on 26.12.2017, just four days after the CIRP

commenced on 22.12.2017, constitutes a proceeding in breach of this

moratorium. It is contended that the moratorium under Section 14 applies to

"all proceedings" irrespective of their nature-civil, criminal, quasi-judicial or

otherwise--and hence includes attachment actions under PMLA. It is further

argued that such attachments impair the CIRP's viability, as the locked assets

cannot be accessed or monetized.

50. Per contra, the Respondent argues that proceedings under the PMLA

relate to criminal law enforcement and are not in the nature of recovery or

enforcement proceedings contemplated under Section 14 of the IBC. It is

further contended that the assets attached are not merely commercial assets,

but are alleged "proceeds of crime", which under the scheme of the PMLA, are

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -24-

liable to be preserved, adjudicated and potentially confiscated in the interest

of justice and public interest.

51. Based on the records, we find the following timeline of relevant events:

 22.12.2017 CIRP commences against Dunar Foods Ltd. By the order of

the NCLT.

 26.12.2017, a Provisional Attachment Order was issued by the ED

under Section 5(1) of the PMLA, linked to alleged tainted funds received

by Dunar Foods Ltd. from PD Agroprocessors Pvt. Ltd.

 11.06.2018 The attachment order confirmed by the PMLA Adjudicating

Authority.

This timeline clearly shows that the ED's action occurred after the

moratorium had commenced. However, the mere temporal sequence is not

determinative; the key issue is whether the ED's attachment under PMLA

qualifies as a "proceeding" hit by the moratorium.

52. In 'Alchemist ARC v. Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. [2017 SCC OnLine SC

1362]', Hon'ble Supreme Court unequivocally held that moratorium under

Section 14 covers all legal proceedings. However, the issue therein related to

civil proceedings and recovery suits.

53. In 'Embassy Property Developments v. State of Karnataka, [(2019) SCC

OnLine SC 1542]', Hon'ble Supreme Court held that NCLT does not have

jurisdiction over matters that arise from statutory or administrative actions

under public law, thereby drawing a distinction between the economic domain

of IBC and the criminal/public domain of other laws.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -25-

54. Further, in 'Varrsana Ispat Ltd. v. ED (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.

493 of 2018), this Appellate Tribunal held that if attachment under PMLA is

based on prior ECIRs and is duly confirmed under PMLA provisions, then

such action cannot be interfered with by the IBC forum merely because CIRP

is ongoing.

In the present case, while the PAO was passed a few days after CIRP

admission, the ECIR investigation commenced as far back as 2013. The ED's

proceedings were therefore rooted in pre-existing criminal investigation

processes, and the assets involved were allegedly acquired as proceeds of

money laundering taking them outside the regular asset pool as contemplated

under IBC.

55. Based on the discussion above we observe the following:

 Section 14 aims to preserve lawful, unencumbered assets for the

purpose of resolution.

 However, if the property is alleged to be "proceeds of crime" and is

already under adjudication by competent authority under a penal

statute, such property cannot be deemed to be part of the freely

available resolution estate.

 The PMLA provides its own adjudicatory process and remedy for

challenging attachments, which is separate from the IBC.

Therefore, the issuance of the PAO dated 26.12.2017 by ED under the PMLA

does not violate the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. Accordingly, the

Issue (I) is answered in the negative.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -26-

ISSUE II: Whether the IBC, by virtue of Section 238, overrides the PMLA

in case of inconsistency, particularly in the context of resolution

processes involving tainted assets

56. Crux of this issue lies in a potential conflict between two central

legislations viz. the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The IBC is a commercial

legislation aimed at facilitating time-bound insolvency resolution of financially

distressed companies. On the other hand, the PMLA is a penal statute that

seeks to identify, attach, and confiscate properties derived from criminal

activities such as money laundering.

Section 238 of the IBC states:

"This is what is known in legal parlance as a non-obstante

clause; a provision meant to give the statute overriding effect over

any other law that contains inconsistent provisions."

57. The Appellant argues in view of the non-obstante clause and the fact

that IBC is a later legislation, if the provisions of the PMLA in particular, the

attachment of corporate debtor's assets, stand in the way of carrying out a

successful insolvency resolution, such attachment must give way to the IBC.

58. The Respondent/ED, however, contends that there is no inconsistency.

The PMLA and IBC, according to the ED, operate in different domains; one

deals with criminal proceeds; the other, with commercial insolvency. Where

the asset is tainted as a "proceed of crime," it ceases to be a legitimate

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -27-

corporate asset and cannot be deployed for commercial resolution. In such

cases, the PMLA must prevail in its domain.

59. Section 238 of the IBC is intended to ensure that the objects of the Code

are not frustrated by competing statutory provisions. In 'Innoventive

Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank, [(2017) 1 SCC 407]', the Hon'ble Supreme Court

held that: Section 238 overrides all other laws, including company law

provisions, to the extent of inconsistency. This ensures that once IBC applies,

other statutes cannot interfere.

60. However, the laws do not operate in a vacuum. For the non-obstante

clause to apply, two conditions must be satisfied:

(i) There must be a clear inconsistency between the two statutes;

(ii) Both statutes must operate in the same field or deal with the same

subject matter.

Therefore, the key question is: Do the IBC and PMLA operate in the same

legislative field, and do they deal with the same subject matter? If the answer

is yes, then Section 238 of the IBC will override the PMLA. If not, the two must

be harmonized to allow coexistence. We will now analyze both the statutes.

61. The PMLA is a criminal law designed to trace, attach, and confiscate

proceeds of crime. Essentially it provides for:

 Investigation under ECIRs (equivalent to FIRs);

 Attachment under Section 5;

 Adjudication and confirmation by a specialized authority;

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -28-

 Appeal to an Appellate Tribunal;

 Confiscation to the Central Government if offences are proved.

62. The IBC, by contrast, is a commercial and economic legislation that

essentially provides for:

 Admission of insolvency applications;

 Constitution of the Committee of Creditors;

 Resolution plan approval;

 Liquidation, if no resolution is achieved.

63. The objectives of both statutes, though occasionally intersecting, are

not inherently inconsistent. While the IBC aims at reviving commercial

entities, the PMLA seeks to punish crime and prevent unjust enrichment

through illicit means.

64. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 'Deputy Director, ED v. Axis Bank [2019

SCC OnLine Del 7854]' explicitly held that IBC and PMLA operate in different

fields and must be harmoniously construed. Tainted assets cannot be

considered part of the resolution estate under IBC.

65. A conflict may arise, when the ED attaches an asset during CIRP,

rendering it unavailable for resolution. The Appellant contends that such

action frustrates the Code's purpose of value maximization. While it is true

that the IBC thrives on a free, unencumbered asset base to attract resolution

applicants. If prime assets are rendered unusable due to attachment, the

likelihood of resolution reduces. That, however, is not a sufficient ground to

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -29-

invalidate another statute's valid operation, especially when it relates to

proceeds of crime.

66. Courts have consistently held that tainted assets are not protected

under commercial laws. In 'Gautam Kundu v. ED, [(2015) 16 SCC 1]', the

Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized the importance of preserving penal

provisions in the face of competing laws. Hon'ble court observed that Where

money laundering is involved, courts must be cautious not to allow

commercial or procedural mechanisms to defeat the legislative intent of penal

enforcement.

67. The Appellant has also placed reliance on Section 32A of the IBC

(introduced in 2020), which grants immunity to the Corporate Debtor and its

property post-resolution. Section 32 A has been extracted below:

"Section 32A (1) states that once a resolution plan is

approved and control passes to a new, unrelated

management, the Corporate Debtor shall not be liable for

offences committed prior to the commencement of CIRP.

Section 32A (2) further provides that such property shall

not be attached or confiscated."

However, in the present case, the PAO was issued on 26.12.2017 and

confirmed on 11.06.2018. The resolution plan was approved only in 2019. This

makes Section 32A inapplicable in the present case, as the property was

already under valid legal attachment before the statutory conditions under

Section 32A were met.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -30-

68. This view finds support in 'Manish Kumar v. Union of India [(2021) 5

SCC 1]', where the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the prospective nature and

conditional immunity under Section 32A.

69. The doctrine of harmonious construction mandates that both statutes

must be read in a manner where they complement each other, not destroy

each other. Secondly, if two special laws operate in different fields, neither

shall override the other, unless they are irreconcilably inconsistent.

70. In the present factual matrix, the IBC cannot be said to override the

PMLA merely because the ED's attachment interferes with the CIRP. The ED

does not act as a creditor, but as a public enforcement agency. The attached

assets are not to satisfy creditors, but to uphold penal objectives and

international obligations under FATF and UN Conventions.

71. In view of the above analysis, we hold the following:

(i) that the PMLA and IBC operate in distinct spheres;

(ii) there no irreconcilable inconsistency exists between the two;

(iii) Section 238 of the IBC cannot override the PMLA in respect of

proceedings involving proceeds of crime;

(iv) That attachment under the PMLA, if validly made and confirmed,

cannot be undone merely because CIRP is ongoing.

Accordingly, Issue II is answered in the negative.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -31-

ISSUE III: Whether the NCLT/NCLAT have jurisdiction to interfere with

confirmed attachments under the PMLA

72. The Appellant argues that his application under Section 60(5) of the

IBC was limited to seeking release of assets to ensure CIRP continuity and

that there is no forum shopping. The Respondent on the other hand relies on

the judgements of Hon'ble SC in 'Embassy Property (Supra)' and this Appellate

Tribunal in 'Varrsana Ispat Ltd.(supra)' to argue that attachment orders

confirmed under the PMLA fall exclusively within the PMLA statutory

framework and not within the NCLT/NCLAT's jurisdiction.

73. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Embassy Property (supra) has categorically

held that NCLT cannot interfere in decisions of statutory or quasi-judicial

authorities functioning under special statutes like the Mines and Minerals

Act. By extension this would automatically include a special statute like the

PMLA.

In the present case, the PAO was confirmed under Section 8(3) of the

PMLA by its Adjudicating Authority. The proper remedy for the Appellant/ RP

was to file an appeal under Section 26 of the PMLA before the Appellate

Tribunal constituted thereunder.

74. We also note that subsequent to conclusion of hearing in this case,

Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment exactly on this issue.

Hon'ble SC in its judgment dated 02.05.2025 in 'Kalyani Transco Vs. M/s.

Bhusan Power and Steel Ltd and Others (Civil Appeal No. 1808 of 2020)'

discussed the powers of NCLAT vis a vis provisions under PMLA 2002 and

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -32-

laid down the law in this regard. The relevant paras 24 -25 and 27-31 of the

judgment are extracted below:

"(V) POWERS OF NCLAT TO REVIEW THE DECISION OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY UNDER THE PMLA: -

24. This takes us to the issue as to whether the NCLAT had any

powers of Judicial Review over the decision taken by the

Statutory Authority under the PMLA?

As per the chronology of events stated earlier, after the NCLT vide

the Order dated 05.09.2019 approved the Resolution Plan of JSW,

subject to the conditions mentioned in para 128 thereof, the

Directorate of Enforcement of Central Government on 10.10.2019

had provisionally attached the assets of CD-BPSL under Section

5 of PMLA. The SRA-JSW challenged the powers of ED to pass

Provisional Attachment Order by raising an issue in the Appeal

being Company Appeal No. 957 of 2019 pending before the

NCLAT. The NCLAT vide the Order dated 14.10.2019 stayed the

said PAO dated 10.10.2019, in the said Company Appeal No.957

of 2019.

25. It appears that couple of months thereafter, Section 32A came

to be inserted in the IBC by Act 1 of 2020 w.e.f. 28.12.2019,

which pertained to the liability of a Corporate Debtor for an

offence committed prior to the commencement of CIRP. The NCLAT

therefore, while deciding the Company Appeal No. 957 of 2019

filed by the JSW along with other Company Appeals filed by the

other parties against the Order passed by the NCLT dated

05.09.2019, held in the impugned Judgment and Order dated

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -33-

17.02.2020 that in view of Section 32A(1)(2), the Directorate of

Enforcement/Investigating Agencies did not have the powers to

attach assets of Corporate Debtor, once the Resolution Plan had

stood approved, and that the criminal investigations against the

Corporate Debtor also would stand abated. The NCLAT also

declared in para 71 of the impugned Judgment that the

attachment of assets of Corporate Debtor by the ED pursuant to

the order dated 10.10.2019 was illegal or without jurisdiction.

27. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the NCLT and NCLAT

are constituted under Section 408 and 410 of the Companies Act,

2013 and not under the IBC. The jurisdiction and powers of the

NCLT and NCLAT are well circumscribed under Section 31 and

Section 60 so far as NCLT is concerned, and under Section 61 of

IBC so far as the NCLAT is concerned. Neither the NCLT nor the

NCLAT is vested with the powers of judicial review over the

decision taken by the Government or Statutory Authority in

relation to a matter which is in the realm of Public Law. As held

by a Three-judge Bench in case of Embassy Property

Developments Private Limited vs. State of Karnataka &

Ors., the Section 60(5) speaks about any question of law or fact,

arising out of or in relation to insolvency resolution, but a decision

taken by the Government or a statutory authority in relation to a

matter which is in the realm of Public Law, cannot be brought

within the fold of the phrase "arising out of or in relation to the

insolvency resolution" appearing in Section 60(5)(C) IBC. It has

been further held therein that in the light of the statutory scheme

as culled out from the various provisions of the IBC, it is clear that

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -34-

wherever the Corporate Debtor has to exercise a right that falls

outside the purview of the IBC, especially in the realm of the

public law, they cannot take a bypass and go before NCLT for the

enforcement of such a right.

28. In view of the settled proposition of law, when the NCLT could

not exercise the powers of judicial review falling outside the

purview of the IBC, or falling within the purview of public law, the

NCLAT also, being an Appellate Authority under Section 61 over

the orders passed by the NCLT, could not exercise any power or

jurisdiction beyond Section 61 of IBC.

29. As held by us earlier, a person aggrieved by an order of the

Adjudicating Authority can prefer an Appeal to the NCLAT under

Section 61(1), and that an Appeal against the order approving a

Resolution Plan under Section 31 could be filed only on the

grounds mentioned in clauses (i) to (v) of sub-section (3) of Section

61. Hence, for filing an Appeal under Section 61, there has to be

an order passed by the NCLT so far as sub-section (1) is

concerned, and if the Appeal is filed against the order of NCLT

approving the Resolution Plan under Section 31, it could be filed

only on the grounds mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 61.

30. In the instant case, after the approval of Resolution Plan of

JSW by the NCLT on 05.09.2019, subject to the conditions

mentioned therein, the PAO came to be passed by the ED on

10.10.2019 under Section 5 of the PMLA. The said PAO was

challenged by SRA-JSW directly in the Company Appeal being No.

957 of 2019 filed by it before the NCLAT, and the NCLAT vide the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -35-

ex parte order dated 14.10.2019 had stayed the PAO. It is

pertinent to note that the said PAO dated 10.10.2019 was also

the subject matter of challenge before this Court in the SLPs filed

by the CoC and the same was stayed by this Court vide the Order

dated 18.12.2019 in the said SLPs. Despite such position, the

NCLAT while passing the impugned Judgment and Order dated

17.02.2020 recorded its findings on Section 32A of IBC to the

effect that the assets of the Corporate Debtor of which JSW was

a Successful Resolution Applicant, were immuned from

attachment by Directorate of Enforcement. Such an Order of

NCLAT is clearly in teeth of the law laid down by this Court in

Embassy Property Developments (supra). The PMLA being a

Public Law, the NCLAT did not have any power or jurisdiction to

review the decision of the Statutory Authority under the PMLA. In

our opinion, apart from the fact that the said issue was pending

before this Court in respect of the same PAO dated 10.10.2019

and therefore the NCLAT should not have decided the said issue,

it was beyond the jurisdiction of the NCLAT to decide the said

issue in the Company Appeal filed by JSW under Section 61 of

IBC.

31. In that view of the matter, it is held that the observations made

and the findings recorded by the NCLAT in the impugned

judgment with regard to the PAO dated 10.10.2019 passed by the

Directorate of Enforcement under the PMLA, being without any

authority of law and without jurisdiction, were coram non judice.

(emphasis supplied)

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018 -36-

75. It is absolutely clear from the above Judgement of the Hon'ble SC that

NCLAT lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the PAO, which has been

subsequently confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA. The

Judgement of Hon'ble SC in Kalyani Transco (Supra) has settled the law in

this regard.

Accordingly, Issue III is also answered in the negative. All the 3 issues

have been decided in the negative against the contentions of the Appellant.

76. In view of the findings above, the appeal is dismissed. Pending I. As, if

any are closed. There would be no order as to costs.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)

SA/Pragya (LRA)

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018