Section 32A IBC Overrides PMLA Attachment of Property covered by the approved Resolution Plan
Comments on the post of Juris Monk Private Limited and the Judgment dated 6.11.2026 of the Delhi High Court in Misc. Appeal (PMLA) 4/f026 of Dash Exports Private Limited Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
The crux lies in Section 32A IBC in respect of liability for prior offences.
The Supreme Court while deciding on the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 32A of the IBC, has held that where the person acquiring the control of a corporate debtor pursuant to a resolution plan approved under Section 31, satisfies the conditions contained in Section 32A of the IBC, such person must get the property of a corporate debtor on a clean slate.
The question is as to what is the effect of approval of a resolution plan under Section 31 IBC on the property provisionally attached under Section 5 of the PMLA.
The resolution plan was approved on 27.11.2020. The NCLT reserved its order on the application for approval of the Resolution Plan. However, in the meanwhile, the ED passed provisional order of attachment on 25.8.2021 in respect of the property of the appellant.
On 29.9.2021, the NCLT approved the Resolution Plan.
The artificial distinction sought to be drawn by the respondent and accepted by the learned Tribunal, namely, that Section 32A(2) of the IBC applies only to attachment orders passed after the approval of the resolution plan, finds no support either in the plain language of Section 32A of the IBC or in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manish Kumar (supra).
On 26.5.2022, the provisional attachment order under PMLA was confirmed. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal.
The present appeal has been filed under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as, ‘PMLA’), challenging the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA
Comments on the post of Juris Monk Private Limited and the Judgment dated 6.11.2026 of the Delhi High Court in Misc. Appeal (PMLA) 4/f026 of Dash Exports Private Limited Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
The crux lies in Section 32A IBC in respect of liability for prior offences.
The Supreme Court while deciding on the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 32A of the IBC, has held that where the person acquiring the control of a corporate debtor pursuant to a resolution plan approved under Section 31, satisfies the conditions contained in Section 32A of the IBC, such person must get the property of a corporate debtor on a clean slate.
The question is as to what is the effect of approval of a resolution plan under Section 31 IBC on the property provisionally attached under Section 5 of the PMLA.
The resolution plan was approved on 27.11.2020. The NCLT reserved its order on the application for approval of the Resolution Plan. However, in the meanwhile, the ED passed provisional order of attachment on 25.8.2021 in respect of the property of the appellant.
On 29.9.2021, the NCLT approved the Resolution Plan.
The artificial distinction sought to be drawn by the respondent and accepted by the learned Tribunal, namely, that Section 32A(2) of the IBC applies only to attachment orders passed after the approval of the resolution plan, finds no support either in the plain language of Section 32A of the IBC or in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manish Kumar (supra).
On 26.5.2022, the provisional attachment order under PMLA was confirmed. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal.
The present appeal has been filed under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as, ‘PMLA’), challenging the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA
