The case involves an application by Pankaj Dhanuka, the liquidator of Corporate Power Limited, seeking permission to sell the corporate debtor as a going concern despite a provisional attachment order (PAO) issued by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The ED had attached certain assets of the corporate debtor, claiming they were proceeds of crime. The liquidator argues that the attachment impedes the sale process and violates Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
The liquidator, Pankaj Dhanuka, filed an application seeking permission to sell Corporate Power Limited as a going concern.
The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) issued a Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) attaching certain assets of Corporate Power Limited under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The ED also filed an original complaint before the PMLA Adjudicating Authority seeking confirmation of the PAO.
The PMLA Adjudicating Authority issued a Show Cause Notice and later confirmed the PAO.
The liquidator argues that the ED's attachment impedes the sale process and violates Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
The ED contends that PMLA proceedings are distinct from IBC proceedings and that the attached properties are proceeds of crime.
…Sign in to view the parties.
Date on which t…
CIRP was admitted in…
The case involves an application by Pankaj Dhanuka, the liquidator of Corporate Power Limited, seeking permission to sell the corporate debtor as a going concern despite a provisional attachment order (PAO) issued by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The ED had attached certain assets of the corporate debtor, claiming they were proceeds of crime. The liquidator argues that the attachment impedes the sale process and violates Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
The liquidator, Pankaj Dhanuka, filed an application seeking permission to sell Corporate Power Limited as a going concern.
The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) issued a Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) attaching certain assets of Corporate Power Limited under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The ED also filed an original complaint before the PMLA Adjudicating Authority seeking confirmation of the PAO.
The PMLA Adjudicating Authority issued a Show Cause Notice and later confirmed the PAO.
The liquidator argues that the ED's attachment impedes the sale process and violates Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
The ED contends that PMLA proceedings are distinct from IBC proceedings and that the attached properties are proceeds of crime.
…Date on which t…
CIRP was admitted in…