ORDER :

NIRAL R. MEHTA, J.

1. The applicant – original appellant has preferred the present Civil Application for condonation of delay of 408 days caused in preferring First Appeal.

2. By way of said First Appeal under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short ‘the PMLA Act’), the applicant has sought to challenge the order dated 3.12.2018 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for SAFEMA, FEMA, PMLA, NDPS and PBPT Act at New Delhi in PMLA-5211/AHD/2018 (stay).

3. The brief facts, according to us, which are necessary so as to appreciate the controversy in hand, are as under :

3.1 The CBI, Gandhinagar registered an FIR No.0292018A0006 dated 26.3.2018 against M/s.Diamond Power Infrastructure Ltd., Vadodara (DPIL) as well as against its Founders, Managing Directors, Joint Managing Directors and also against unknown public servants of various banks and unknown others for commission of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’).

3.2 In view of the aforesaid, the money laundering investigation under the PMLA Act has been initiated vide ECIR/AMZO/03/2018. Pursuant to the aforesaid investigation, vide provisional order No.02/2018 dated 24.4.2018, one of the properties being land and commercial building, Khata No.874, Revenue Survey No.619 mouje Atladara, District – Vadodara, land admeasuring 5722 sq. mtrs. belonging to the company i.e. M/s.Mayfair Leisures Ltd. came to be provisionally attached by the authority exercising the powers under Section 5(1) of the PMLA Act.

3.3 The property was mortgaged by M/s.Mayfair Leisures Ltd. to the respondent No.2 – Bank of India with a view to avail term loan to the tune of Rs.63 crores.

3.4 It appears that thereafter, the complaint has been filed by the respondent No.1 before the Adjudicating Authority at New Delhi being OC No.977 of 2018 on 22.5.2018 under Section 5(1) of the PMLA Act against DPIL and 12 others including M/s.Mayfair Leisures Ltd. and further requested, inter-alia, to adjudicate the complaint under the PMLA Act of 2002 and also requested to confirm the provisional order dated 22.4.2018.

3.5 The Adjudicating Authority, after considering the submissions of the concerned parties, came to the conclusion that prima facie, the offence has been committed and the properties those are provisionally attached are ‘proceeds of crime’ or value thereof and thereby, are involved in the crime as envisaged under the PMLA Act, the Adjudicating Authority, therefore, vide its order dated 1.10.2018 confirmed the provisional attachment order.

3.6 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the respondent No.2 appears to have approached the Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi under Section 26 of the PMLA Act. The Appellate Tribunal vide its interim order dated 3.3.2018, directed both the parties i.e. respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 to maintain the status-quo in respect of the properties attached.

3.7 It also appears that in the meantime, the respondent No.2 had approached the NCLT, Ahmedabad for recovery of its dues to the tune of Rs.76.88 crores which was due and payable by M/s.Mayfair Leisures Ltd. The company petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 therefore was filed by respondent No.2 - bank. The NCLT, Ahmedabad vide its order dated 2.6.2020, admitted the said Company Petition No.213 of 2018 and declared moratorium and stayed all the proceedings qua the company.

3.8 The NCLT, Ahmedabad had initially appointed one Mr.Chandra Prakash Jain as the Interim Resolution Professional to conduct CIRP as well as to take control over the management of the company. However, pursuant to the resolution passed by the Committee of Creditors constituted under the CIRP, NCLT, Ahmedabad vide its order dated 21.10.2020 appointed Mr. Vinod Tarachand Agrawal, the applicant herein, as the RP to conduct the CIRP as well as to take control over the management of the