Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + AT Money Laundering - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1246 - AT - Money LaunderingOffence under PMLA - attachment of properties - properties which are not mortgaged with any bank but provisionally attached herein - overriding effect of IB&C, 2016 over PMLA 2002 - Held that:- The Punjab National Bank has moved the NCLT, Ahmedabad Bench, under IB&C. The properties which are not mortgaged with any bank but provisionally attached herein are undisputedly secured being the properties of the private appellants and M/s Accumen( also an appellant) who are the guarantors and loan amount is liable to be recovered from their properties attached herein. We have taken into consideration the stand of the enforcement directorate on the issue of overriding effect. We are not agreeing with their view hence their arguments that the PMLA,2002 has overriding effect is negated. So far as the legal issue of overriding effect of IB&C, 2016 over PMLA 2002 is concerned, it is held that the IB&C has the overriding effect over the Prevention of Money Laundering Act as the PMLA is a statue which came into effect much prior to the coming into force of IB &C. The IB&C is a later statute which came into effect in the year 2016. The aim and object of both the statutes are not doubt different but they are in operation in their respective fields. The legislature while framing the IB&C is quite aware of the existence of PMLA and other statutes. Thus it is held it is held that the IB&C has overriding effect over PMLA. Whether the proceedings before Adjudicating Authority PMLA is a civil proceedings or a criminal proceedings? - Held that:- The proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority(PMLA) are quasijudicial in nature. It is not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure(CPC), 1908, but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of this Act, the Adjudicating Authority shall have powers to regulate its own procedure as provided under section 6(15) of PMLA. At the same time section 11 of PMLA has empowered the Adjudicating Authority to exercise certain powers (of civil courts under CPC) prescribed in section 11 of PMLA. It is held that the proceeding u/s 8 of PMLA,2002 before the Adjudicating Authority is a civil proceeding and the Adjudicating Authority should have stayed the proceedings on passing of the moratorium order by the NCLT. The continuation of the proceedings from the date of commencement of the moratorium order is contrary to the intention of the legislature hence the consequential order of confirmation of PAO is contrary to law. Hence liable to be set aside. Therefore, the period of continuation of proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority, PMLA, and before this Tribunal till the passing of the present judgment and order, from the date of commencement of the moratorium order, be treated as excluded while calculating limitation of the period of completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The appeals are allowed in terms of the order mentioned above.
|