Successful Resolution Applicant Entitled Benefit Of Protection U/S 32A IBC To Lift ED's Attachment Over Corporate Debtor's Assets: NCLAT New Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member), in a crucial judgment observed that the benefit of section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) will be extended to the new management of the Alchemist Infra Reality Ltd.(corporate debtor) after the approval of resolution plan. In this case, the tribunal ordered to lift the properties of the corporate debtor from the attachment by ED under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).Brief FactsThe corporate debtor was admitted into insolvency on October 10, 2021. Resolution plan submitted by the appellant was approved by Committee of Creditors with 100% vote share on October 18, 2023. Thereafter, a letter of intent was issued to the appellant on October 20, 2023. Consequently, Resolution Professional filed an application bearing IA No. 01/2024 in which the approval of the plan from the NCLT was sought.The appellant in the resolution plan submitted sought to vacate attachments on the assets of corporate debtor by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). This request was made by Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) so that the assets could be monetised and developed as per the resolution plan. The appellant contended that all government related attachments on the corporate debtor's properties should be vacated after the approval of the Resolution Plan.NCLT DecisionThe resolution plan was approved by the NCLT on July 4, 2024 but it refused to vacate the attachments over the properties by the ED under the PMLA. The Tribunal observed that it will lead to dangerous consequences if the properties attached under the PMLA are released automatically once a resolution plan is approved. The Tribunal concluded that the SRA would be entitled to reliefs, waivers and concessions if any what is explicitly mentioned in section 31(1) and 32A of the IBC therefore properties attached by the ED would not be released.Issue Before NCLATWhether Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) is entitled to the benefit of Section 32A of IBC to lift the attachment under PMLA by Enforcement Directorate over the assets of the Corporate Debtor.NCLAT's AnalysisThe NCLAT observed that the NCLT erred in not extending the benefit of section 32A of the IBC to the appellant. The tribunal relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Shiv Charan and Ors. vs. Adjudicating Authority and Anr. (2024) in which it was held that once a resolution plan is approved, the corporate debtor is entitled to the benefit of section 32A of the IBC. No assets can be attached of the corporate debtor for the offences committed before commencement of CIRP. It was held as under:“The Bombay High Court in Shiv Charan and Ors. vs. Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Anr. – Writ Petition (L) No.9943 of 2023has categorically held that Section 32-A mandates that once a Resolution Plan is approved, no action can be taken against the properties of the Corporate Debtor in relation to an offence committed prior to the commencement of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. It was also held by the Bombay High Court that NCLT has all powers to direct the ED to raise its attachment in relation to the attached properties of the Corporate Debtor, once a Resolution Plan qualifies for immunity under Section 32A was approved. The Bombay High Court has also held that NCLT does not lack jurisdiction to use its judicial discretion to adjudicate upon the release of the attachment”.The NCLAT further noted that the NCLT wrongly interpreted the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Rajiv Chakraborty vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2022) in which the court recognised the power of attachment under PMLA. But it also culled out the legislative intent behind incorporating section 32A of the IBC which creates an impregnable wall around the new management of the corporate debtor after the approval of resolution plan. The tribunal held that once the resolution plan qualifies for immunity under section 32A of the IBC, invocation of powers under PMLA ends. It was observed as under:“The reliance on judgment of the Delhi High Court in Rajiv Chakraborty's case for not accepting the prayer of the Appellant is also misplaced. In Rajiv Chakraborty's case, the Delhi High Court has laid down that power to attach under PMLA would not fall within the ken of Section 14(1)(a). Whereas in the same judgment, Section 32A has been noticed and the Delhi High Court has laid down that the power to attach under the PMLA would not fall within the ken of Section 14(1)(a) of the IBC. Through Section 32A, the Legislature has authoritatively spoken of the terminal point whereafter the powers under the PMLA would not be exercisable. The events which trigger its application when reached would lead to the erection of an impregnable wall...

Successful Resolution Applicant Entitled Benefit Of Protection U/S 32A IBC To Lift ED's Attachment Over Corporate Debtor's Assets: NCLAT New Delhi

Mohd Malik Chauhan

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mohd Malik Chauhan

Successful Resolution Applicant Entitled Benefit Of Protection U/S 32A IBC To Lift ED's Attachment Over Corporate Debtor's Assets: NCLAT New Delhi

Mohd Malik Chauhan

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mohd Malik Chauhan

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers