ORDER

12.08.2025

By this appeal filed under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( in short “the Act of 2002”), a challenge has been made to the order dated 26.05.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order (‘PAO’) dated 25.08.2021.

Issue(s) raised by the appellant:

2. This order would address the issue raised by the Ld. Counsel of the appellant, M/s Dash Exports Pvt. Ltd. which underwent a Resolution Plan approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (‘ in short ‘ NCLT’) and therefore the Ld. Counsel for the appellant made arguments only in reference to Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ( in short “IBC 2016’). It was submitted that in the proceedings before the NCLT, the appellant No.2 M/s Asteroid Shelter Homes Private Limited remained successful Resolution applicant in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of M/s Dash Exports Pvt. Ltd.. The Resolution Plan was approved by the NCLT on 29.09.2021 and in the light of the approval of the Resolution Plan, there was change of control of the management of the Corporate Debtor.

3. Prior to approval of the Resolution Plan, an order for Provisional Attachment of the property was passed on 25.08.2021 and on account of the said order followed by its confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority vide its impugned order, the appellant could not get the property. The prayer was made for release of the property in light of the Section 32A of the IBC 2016.

4. A reference of Section 32A(1) of the IBC 2016 was given to indicate that the liability of the Corporate Debtor for an offence committed prior to commencement of CIRP shall cease and the Corporate Debtor shall not be prosecuted for a such offence from the date, the Resolution Plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of the IBC 2016 subject to the condition given under clause (a) and (b) of Section 32A(1) of the IBC. The emphasis of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant was that on the initiation of the process for Resolution Plan, the respondent should not have taken action in furtherance to the allegation against the Corporate Debtor for criminal activity. The respondent ignored the aforesaid and caused PAO subsequent to it.

5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has referred the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Rajiv Chakraborty Resolution Professional of EIEL versus Directorate of Enforcement reported in MANU/DE/4428/2022 to submit that the judgment aforesaid is in conflict to the judgment of the Supreme Court. Ld. Counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kalyani Transco versus Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. and Others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1010 where it has been held that NCLT and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) have been constituted under Section 408 and 410 of the Companies Act, 2013 and not under the IBC 2016. The jurisdiction and powers of the NCLT and NCLAT are well defined under Sections 31, 60 and 61 of the IBC,2016. Neither NCLT nor NCLAT are vested with the powers of the judicial review over the decision taken by the Government or the Statutory authority in relation to a matter in the realm of public law. In the light of the judgment of the aforesaid, the appellant had no option but to seek relief from this Tribunal in reference to Section 32A of the IBC 2016 to cause interference in the impugned order.

6. Ld. Counsel for the appellant made a reference to a Writ Petition to challenge the impugned order before the High Court of Delhi when this Tribunal was not functional. The High Court of Delhi relegated the applicant to take remedy before the Tribunal. The prayer was made to cause interference in the PAO so as the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority in reference to Section 32A of the IBC 2016.

7. Ld. Counsel for the appellant did not raise any other issue than referred to above despite an opportunity and even pleaded in the appeal in reference to Sec