IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BIREN VAISHNAV, J.
Welspun Steel Resources Private Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 19387 Of 2022
Decided On : 17-02-2023
Constitution of India ,1950 - Article 226 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act - Section 8 - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 7 - Admission - Appointed as an Interim Resolution Professional - Insolvency Resolution Process - Whether the assets acquired by the petitioners can at all be said to be ‘proceeds of crime’– Held, when assumption of jurisdiction by authorities itself is non-existent and respondent proceeds on facts which have no nexus to objects sought to be achieved, and opinion is not based on any tangible material, ‘reason to believe’ is a jurisdictional fact and in absence of such ‘reason to believe’ arrived at by the authorities, bar of alternative remedy cannot oust jurisdiction of this court - As far as section 8 of PMLA is concerned, what is evident on reading provision is that onus shifts on petitioners once the adjudicating authority decides to take action and therefore section 8 cannot be a ground on which petitioner can be ousted from securing a relief in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India - Petition is allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. The prayers in this petition read as under:
“a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari and/or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate Writ/order inter alia quashing and setting aside the Provisional Attachment Order No. 8 of 2022 dated 21st September 2022 passed by Respondent No. 1 to the extent it attaches the Specified Assets that have been sold to the Petitioners;
b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ/order inter alia to declare and order that the right, title and interest of the Petitioners to the Specified Assets sold to the Petitioners will not be affected in any manner by any action taken/to be taken by Respondent No. 1 under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act against the Corporate Debtor or the Corporate Debtor’s promoters;”
2. Facts in brief are as under:
2.1 The petitioners namely (I) Welspun Steel Resources Private Limited (II) Welspun Corp Limited (III) Rank Real Estate and Infra Developers Private Limited and (IV) Mauyaan Shipyard Private Limited have approached this court challenging the provisional attachment order no. 8/22 dated 21.09.2022. ABG Shipyard Limited (the corporate debtor) was in the business of ship building in Dahej, Gujarat. An application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) was filed by the ICICI Bank against the Corporate Debtor which was admitted by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad (NCLT). The respondent no. 2, after passing of an order on admission was appointed as an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and was subsequently confirmed as RP (Resolution Professional) by the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the corporate debtor went on unsuccessfully for a period of one and half years and since it could not be resolved, by an order dated 25.04.2019, the corporate debtor was ordered to be liquidated by the NCLT. Several attempts to sell the assets were made but these public auctions had failed.
2.2 On 16.08.2021, the NCLT passed an order permitting the liquidator to complete the sale of assets on a composite basis and directed the liquidator to complete the process within a period of three weeks. On 24.08.2021, the liquidator issued a bid document for sale of specified assets of ABG Shipyard. The petitioners submitted their expression of interest on 26.08.2021. One of the bidders from the abandoned Swiss Challenge Process filed an appeal before the NCLT challenging the order of the NCLT dated 16.08.2021 permitting the liquidator to complete the sale of assets on a composite basis. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upheld the order of NCLT.
2.3 On a challenge before the Apex Court, the Apex Court upheld the power of the liquidator to sell the assets and pursuant thereto the liquidator resumes the sale process by amending the bid document. The petitioners were successful bidders. It appears that in the interregnum, State Bank of India who was one of the lenders filed a complaint against the corporate debtor and promoters with the CBI. On 07.02.2022, an FIR was registered pursuant to the complaint by the CBI. On 15.02.2022, an enforcement case was recorded under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2022 (PMLA).
2.4 After the petitioners were declared as successful bidders and had paid their entire sale consideration for specified assets, on 21.09.2022, the liquidator informed the petitioners that the respondent no. 1 – Deputy Director of Directorate of Enforcement had passed an order in respect of the assets that were sold to the petitioners. On 22.09.2022, a press note was published informing on its website that it had attached the assets of the corporate debtor. A copy of the provisional attachment order dated 21.09.2022 was received by the petitioners on 22.09.2022. The gist of the allegations contained in the order was that the loans raised on the banks were transferred to group
Manish Kumar vs. Union of India and Another
Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Nagpur
S. Ganga Saran and Sons (Pvt.) Ltd., Calcutta vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors.
Sheo Nath Singh vs. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta
Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Companies District I Calcutta and Anr.
The Income Tax Officer, I Ward, District VI, Calcutta and Others vs. Lakmani Mewal Das
Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India
CIT, West Bengal – III amd Ors. vs. Oriental Rubber Works
CB Gautam vs. Union of India reported in 1993 (1) SCC 78
Apex Laboratories Private Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2022) 7 SCC 98
Solidaire India Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd.
Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. v. State Industrial & Investment Corpn. of Maharashtra Ltd.
SupremeToday
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code's moratorium precludes enforcement actions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, as both statutes serve distinct legislative purposes without infringing on ....
The absence of recorded reasons prior to issuing a provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act renders the order invalid.
Properties acquired prior to the commission of a predicate offence cannot be attached under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, as they do not constitute proceeds of crime.
The court upheld the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act before invoking writ jurisdiction, affirming that 'proceeds of crime' includes property in....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.