Rajiv Chakraborty Resolution Professional of Eiel vs Directorate of Enforcement

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
YASHWANT VARMA
Rajiv Chakraborty Resolution Professional of Eiel – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent

Table of Content
1. impact of moratorium on enforcement actions (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. confirmation of attachment orders (Para 4 , 5)
3. distinction between civil and criminal proceedings under pmla (Para 6 , 10 , 28)
4. arguments regarding jurisdiction and overlap of ibc and pmla (Para 8 , 9 , 14 , 15)
5. court observations on legislative intent and priorities (Para 11 , 12)
6. final conclusions on the interplay between ibc and pmla (Para 78 , 84 , 90 , 93)

JUDGMENT

A. PROLOUGE

1. This writ petition raises the important question of the impact that a moratorium that comes into effect in terms of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2006¹ would have on the powers of the Enforcement Directorate² to enforce an attachment under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002³ . The petition raises a challenge to orders of attachment which have been made by the ED in exercise of powers conferred by the PMLA. While the writ petition as originally framed had assailed the validity of Provisional Attachment Orders⁴ dated 08 July 2020 and 05 August 2020, subsequently and since those orders came to be confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, an amendment application was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTYASHWANT VARMARajiv Chakraborty Resolution Professional of Eiel – AppellantVersusDirectorate of Enforcement – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
YASHWANT VARMA
Rajiv Chakraborty Resolution Professional of Eiel – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent