COMMON ORDER

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

The issue involved in both these writ petitions are common and hence, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common order.

2. W.P.No.25278 of 2022 has been filed by the Indian Bank challenging the provisional attachment order of the first respondent dated 30.06.2022 passed u/s.5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as “PMLA”] and the notice issued by the second respondent in O.S.No.1779 of 2022, dated 02.08.2022 for the purpose of adjudication to decide on the confirmation of the provisional attachment order u/s.8(3) of the PMLA.

3. W.P.No.23054 of 2022 has been filed by the petitioners, who have been shown as accused persons in Crime No.RC0692022E0009 registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offence Branch, Chennai, questioning the very same proceedings of the respondents 1 and 2.

4. The brief facts of the case is that the Indian Bank sanctioned a medium term loan to the petitioners in W.P.No.23054 of 2022 to the tune of Rs.150 crores for the purpose of purchase of immovable properties. The borrowers also executed loan documents and they mortgaged their immovable properties and also hypothecated certain movable properties. That apart, the petitioners in W.P.No.23054 of 2022 also availed open cash credit facility to the tune of Rs.90 crores from Indian Bank. They defaulted in the repayment of the loan and hence, was classified as non-performing asset by the Indian Bank on 07.07.2019. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated under SARFAESI Act and symbolic possession was taken by the Indian Bank on 27.01.2020.

5. Indian Bank detected several irregularities in the disbursal and availment of the loan and also in the properties that were mortgaged and it was found to be overvalued by the petitioners in W.P.No.23054 of 2022 and there was also diversion of funds and hence, a complaint came to be lodged against them on 25.04.2022 before the CBI and a First Information Report came to be registered in Crime No.RC0692022E0009 for offences u/s.120-B and 420 IPC and Section 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

6. The First Information Report that was registered by the CBI was taken note of by the Enforcement Directorate and it was taken up for investigation in ECIR/CEZO-1/45/2022 dated 26.05.2022.

7. A provisional attachment order came to be passed on 30.06.2022 by the first respondent in exercise of powers u/s.5(1) of the PMLA r/w Rule 3 of the PMLA Rules. Thereafter, a complaint came to be filed before the second respondent for the purpose of adjudication u/s.8 of the PMLA and for the confirmation of the provisional attachment order u/s.8(3) of the PMLA. The same was taken on file in O.C.No.1779 of 2022 and a notice dated 02.08.2022 was issued to the petitioners in both the writ petitions. Both the provisional attachment order and notice issued by the second respondent u/s.8 of the PMLA have been put to challenge in these writ petitions.

8. Heard Mr.B.Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel and Mr.AL.Somaiyaji, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.P.Siddharthan, learned Special Public Prosecutor [ED], appearing for the Enforcement Directorate.

9. The main ground that was urged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the SARFAESI Act will have the primacy/overriding effect over the provisions of the PMLA. In other words, it was contended that the SARFAESI Act has to be treated as a Special Act and the PMLA must be considered to be a General Act and hence, SARFAESI Act will have primacy over the PMLA. To substantiate this submission, Section 26(c) of the SARFAESI Act was pressed into service and it was contended that any security interest or attachment order upon any property in favour of the secured creditor shall have priority over any subsequent proceedings initiated. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petiti