The case involves an application filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) of a Corporate Debtor seeking the release of two assets (a bank account and a property) that were provisionally attached by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The ED had provisionally attached the assets on 27.11.2020. The RP argued that the provisional attachment had lapsed because the ED did not confirm it within the statutory 180-day period as required by PMLA. The ED contended that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) lacked jurisdiction and that PMLA superseded the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The ED also claimed to have approached the Delhi High Court for relaxation of the 180-day limit due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
1. The Applicant was appointed as the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor.
2. The Resolution Professional filed an application seeking the release of two assets of the Corporate Debtor: a current account and a property.
3. These assets were provisionally attached by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) on 27.11.2020.
4. The ED's provisional attachment was based on Provisional Attachment Order No. 15/2020.
5. The Resolution Professional argued that the provisional attachment lapsed because the ED did not confirm it within 180 days, as required by Section 5(3) of PMLA.
6. The 180-day period expired on 26.05.2021.
7. The ED argued that the NCLT lacked jurisdiction and that PMLA superseded IBC.
8.
Sign in to view the parties.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) provisionally…
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)…
The case involves an application filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) of a Corporate Debtor seeking the release of two assets (a bank account and a property) that were provisionally attached by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The ED had provisionally attached the assets on 27.11.2020. The RP argued that the provisional attachment had lapsed because the ED did not confirm it within the statutory 180-day period as required by PMLA. The ED contended that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) lacked jurisdiction and that PMLA superseded the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The ED also claimed to have approached the Delhi High Court for relaxation of the 180-day limit due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
1. The Applicant was appointed as the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor.
2. The Resolution Professional filed an application seeking the release of two assets of the Corporate Debtor: a current account and a property.
3. These assets were provisionally attached by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) on 27.11.2020.
4. The ED's provisional attachment was based on Provisional Attachment Order No. 15/2020.
5. The Resolution Professional argued that the provisional attachment lapsed because the ED did not confirm it within 180 days, as required by Section 5(3) of PMLA.
6. The 180-day period expired on 26.05.2021.
7. The ED argued that the NCLT lacked jurisdiction and that PMLA superseded IBC.
8.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) provisionally…
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)…