NCLAT affirms that it Lacks Jurisdiction to Interfere with Confirmed ED Attachments Under PMLA [Read Order]
The tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the PAO, which has been subsequently confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA.
![NCLAT affirms that it Lacks Jurisdiction to Interfere with Confirmed ED Attachments Under PMLA [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/07/12/2063025-nclat-pmla.webp "NCLAT affirms that it Lacks Jurisdiction to Interfere with Confirmed ED Attachments Under PMLA [Read Order]")
The Delhi bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that NCLT/NCLAT does not have jurisdiction to interfere with confirmed attachments under the PMLA. In this case, the appeal has been filed under Section 61(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, by Anil Kohli, the Resolution Professional (RP) for Dunar Foods Limited (Corporate Debtor), challenging...
The Delhi bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that NCLT/NCLAT does not have jurisdiction to interfere with confirmed attachments under the PMLA.
In this case, the appeal has been filed under Section 61(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, by Anil Kohli, the Resolution Professional (RP) for Dunar Foods Limited (Corporate Debtor), challenging the refusal of the Adjudicating Authority to direct the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to release the provisionally attached assets of the Corporate Debtor.
Know Practical Aspects of Tax Planning, Click Here
It was argued by the appellant that just 4 days after the CRIP commenced, the ED issued the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) and this constitutes a proceeding in breach of this moratorium.
One of the issues in this case was whether the NCLT/NCLAT has jurisdiction to interfere with confirmed attachments under the PMLA.
The appellant contended that Section 60(5) of the IBC was limited to seeking release of assets to ensure CIRP continuity and that there is no forum shopping.
The respondents, by relying on the Supreme Court ruling in the case of ‘Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., [2019 SCC OnLine SC 1542]’, contended that the attachment orders issued under the PMLA fall exclusively within the PMLA statutory framework and not within the NCLT/NCLAT’s jurisdiction.
3000 Illustrations, Case Studies & Examples for Ind-AS & IFRS, Click Here
The tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the PAO in accordance with Section 8(3) of the PMLA. The Appellant/RP should file an appeal under Section 26 of the PMLA to the Appellate Tribunal.
The NCLAT, by relying on the Apex Court’s judgement in the case of Kalyani Transco Vs. M/s. Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd and Others (Civil Appeal No. 1808 of 2020) held that it lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the PAO, which has been subsequently confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA.
The NCLAT, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), and Indevar Pandey (Technical Member), dismissed the appeal.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
