Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Milan Textile Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Initiating Officer, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. property attachment under the benami act is challenged. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. contention on insolvency resolution protecting the property. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. maintainability of writ petition amidst pending appeal. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. interpretation and impact of section 32a on actions against property. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. writ petition allowed, confirming protection of attached property. (Para 18) |
ORDER :
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.
1. Milan Textile Enterprises Private Limited purchased the petition- mentioned property vide sale deed dated 26.08.2004 (Document No. 2378/2004) registered on the file of Sub Registrar, Thallakulam. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition), Chennai formed the opinion that this property is being held benami by the petitioner herein. Hence, provisional attachment order under Section 24(3) of theProhibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was issued on 01.11.2019 restraining the petitioner from transferring or charging the said property. Vide order dated 28.01.2020, it was directed that the attachment would continue until further order was passed by the adjudicating a
Section 32A of IBC protects properties covered under a resolution plan from prior offences, allowing the new management to commence without liability.
Section 32A of the IBC, 2016 grants corporate debtors immunity from prosecution and asset attachment upon resolution plan approval, overriding provisions of the PMLA, 2002.
Provisional attachment orders – Orders passed under Benami Act cannot be questioned before authorities under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Where subject matter of dispute pertains to exercis....
Properties of a corporate debtor under attachment for money laundering can still be utilized in insolvency resolution, emphasizing the non-conflict between IBC and PMLA.
The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 32A of the IBC, as discussed in the recent Supreme Court judgment in Manish Kumar v. Union of India, which highlighted the immunit....
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 ....
Provisional attachment of assets post-approval of the resolution plan under IBC Section 32A is impermissible as it undermines the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
