SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 3683

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
SMT. BIDISHA BANERJEE, CMDE. SIDDHARTH MISHRA, JJ
ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
CORPORATE POWER LIMITED – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rohit Das, Adv., Ms. Kishwan Rahman, Adv., Mr. Vishesh Pandey, Adv.
For the Respondents: Ms. Manju Bhuteria, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anupam Prakash, Adv., Ms. Kirti Talreja, Adv., Mr. S.C. Prasad, Adv., Mr. Adil Rashid, Adv., Ms. Sumita Sarkar, Adv., Mr. Ajay Chaubey, Adv., Ms. Hema Mukherjee, Adv., Ms. Prity Panja, Adv., Mr. Avijit Tiwari, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

The case did not explicitly hold that an attachment under Section 5 of the PMLA is a civil sanction. Instead, the judgment clarified that proceedings under the PMLA, including provisional attachment orders, are distinct from civil sanctions and are primarily aimed at confiscation of property derived from or involved in criminal activity. The court emphasized that attachment orders under PMLA do not confer a superior or overriding right in the property and do not result in civil sanctions.

The court recognized that the objectives of the PMLA are related to criminal proceedings and confiscation measures, and such attachment actions are part of the criminal law framework rather than civil sanctions. It also acknowledged that the attachment under PMLA is a provisional, investigative measure that does not necessarily equate to a civil penalty or sanction.

Therefore, the case's analysis indicates that attachment orders under Section 5 of PMLA are not considered civil sanctions but are procedural measures within a criminal law context aimed at investigating and confiscating proceeds of crime.


ORDER

Per Bidisha Banerjee, Member (Judicial):

1. The Court congregated through a hybrid mode.

2. Ld. Sr. Counsels/ Counsels were heard at length.

A. Parties to the proceedings:

3. The present application preferred by Mr. Pankaj Dhanuka, liquidator of the corporate debtor – Corporate Power Limited, hereinafter referred to as “Applicant”/ “Liquidator” under Section 60 (5) read with Rule 35(1)(F) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 , for brevity “I&B Code” against the Deputy Director of Directorate of Enforcement, hereinafter referred to as “Respondent No. 1” and Assets Care and Reconstruction enterprise Limited, hereinafter referred to as “Respondent No. 2”.

B. Reliefs sought:

4. The Applicant liquidator has sought for the following reliefs:

a. permit the Liquidator to carry out the sale of the Corporate Debtor, Corporate Power Limited, as a going concern, on an ’as is where is’ basis, as per the directions of this Hon’ble Tribunal as contained in the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in I.A. No. 447/2024, notwithstanding the provisional attachment order no. 06/2024 dated 24.10.2024 in ECIR/NGSZO/02/2023 passed by the Respondent No.1, or any subsequent confirmation thereof, and any proc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top