The timing of events, including the approval of a resolution plan and the knowledge of the provisional attachment order, influenced the court's decision in balancing the interests of the parties involved.

JUDGMENT :

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. This is a petition under Article 226 impugning the order dated 26th May, 2022 passed by the ld. Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

3. The Petitioner no. 1 Dash Exports Pvt. Limited went into insolvency proceedings before the NCLT. The resolution plan submitted by M/s. Asteroid Shelter Homes Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner No. 2 was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) on 27th November, 2020.

4. However, the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA passed the provisional attachment order on 25th August, 2021, of the property of Petitioner No. 1 situated at 228-P, Village Habibpur, Pargana District, Tehsil Gautam Buddh Nagar, UP.

5. The case of the Petitioners is that despite the provisional attachment order having been passed, on 29th September 2021, the Resolution Plan was approved by NCLT. Thus, the Petitioner No. 2 was never informed of the said provisional attachment order and more than Rs. 28 crores has been deposited by Petitioner No. 2 on 28th March 2022, in terms of the Resolution Plan, for securing the Company including rights over the property. It was only when the possession of the property was sought for from the Bank on 13th April 2022 that the Bank informed the Chairperson of the monitoring committee that the property is attached.

6. The 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.

7. This Court heard the matter on 29th November, 2022 and considering that a substantial amount of money had been paid by the Petitioners, since the Bank was not placing its clear stand on record, a responsible official of the Bank was directed to be present in court to clarify the position. The affidavits on behalf of the Bank have been placed on record.

8. An application for the release of the title deeds was also filed by the Petitioners. On 24th March, 2023, submissions were heard on behalf of the Bank as also the Petitioners and the Enforcement Directorate. After hearing the parties, the following order was passed on 24th March 2023.

“xxx

3. Mr. Srinivasan, ld. Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank submits that the State Bank of India acquired knowledge of the provisional attachment order dated 25th August, 2021 only on 14th October, 2021. It is the contention of the SBI that prior to this, the CIRP had been initiated and on 26th February, 2020 when the moratorium order was passed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the Company was sold to the Petitioner herein. Thereafter, the resolution plan has been approved by the creditors on 27th November, 2020.

xxx

6. The Court has heard ld. Counsels for all the parties. In view of the submissions made today, it is directed that the title deeds shall continue to remain with the State Bank of India.

7. The prayer of the Petitioner is for setting aside of the provisional attachment order being PAO No. 05/2021 dated 25th August, 2021 on the grounds that the CIRP had commenced before the passing of the impugned PAO. Clearly, it is the Petitioner's case that, having already taken control of the Company including the immovable property, the same cannot be set at naught by the Enforcement Directorate.

8. The Appellate Tribunal under Section 25 of the PMLA Act has now been constituted. The Bank has admittedly filed an appeal challenging the confirmation of the provisional attachment order by the Adjudicating Authority on 26th May, 2022. The said appeal is pending and is stated to be listed on 20th April, 2023.

9. Since the appeal has to be now substantially heard by the Appellate Tribunal, the Petitioner submits that since the monetary value of the property was only Rs. 3.01 crore, the Petitioner is willing to deposit the said sum with the Enforcement Directorate subject to which the title deeds could be released. This