Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (4) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1436 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAIValidity of attachment order - direction to Respondents 2-4, to deposit to the credit of the account of the Corporate Debtor, received by them in lieu of alienating the property owned by the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT:- It is seen from the submissions and the documents that the 1st Respondent has only provisionally attached the said properties, which means that it is for a period of either until further orders or 90 days from the end of month from the date of the notice under Section 24(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988; whichever is earlier. It can be seen that the Date of the order for attachment was 01.11.2019 and the date of filing the Application is 03.01.2020 which is only 63 days from the date of attachment order. The Applicant had sought that as the Corporate Debtor is undergoing CIRP, the provisional attachment Order of the 1st Respondent be raised, failure of which would result in liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. However, as it can be seen that the Corporate Debtor has been ordered for Liquidation, the present Application has become infructuous. The provisional attachment made by the Respondents comes under the statute of Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 which in itself has stipulated a due process with respect to attachment of property under Section 7 of the same. As the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 are two special Acts, the Applicant has alleged that the former should prevail over the latter as the IBC, 2016 was framed in 2016 - The general principle for construction in a circumstance where two special Acts are in conflict with each other is that, the Act made later should prevail vide the maxim 'leges posteriores priores conterarias abrogant'. However, in the present case, as there is nothing to stop the Applicant/Liquidator herein to proceed under the relevant section to raise the provisional attachment. This Adjudicating Authority does not find any conflict between these two statutes as the Liquidator is not barred by IBC, 2016 to add the said property into the liquidation estate to proceed with the liquidation proceedings if the said properties are part of the Liquidation Asset unless it is proved otherwise - Application dismissed.
|