DSP Private Limited (the Corporate Debtor) underwent a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) in 09.12.2021 initiated by a financial creditor. A Resolution Plan was put forth by MM Limited, a Resolution Applicant

The facts of the case are similar to the case of Mr. Shiv Charan & Ors Vs. Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 & Ors, Writ Petition (L) No.9943 of 2023 along With Writ Petition (L) No.29111 of 2023 judgement dated March 01, 2024 . In this case, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court inter alia observed that Section 32A(2) of the IBC, 2016 protects the property of the corporate debtor from any attachment and restraint in proceedings connected to the offense committed prior to the commencement of the CIRP. Once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 and a change in control and management is effected under the resolution plan (the same ingredients as set out in Section 32A(1) are stipulated here too), the property of the corporate debtor would get immunity from further prosecution of proceedings. Clause (i) in the Explanation to Section 32A(2) removes all doubt about what the assets are given immunity from. The provision explicitly stipulates that an "action against the property" of the corporate debtor, from which immunity would be available, "shall include the attachment, seizure, retention or confiscation of such property under such law" as applicable. The reference being to any action against the property under any law would evidently bring within its compass, attachments made under the PMLA, 2002. Further, the Hon'ble High Court in its summary of conclusions inter alia held that the NCLT in its capacity as the Adjudicating Authority under the IBC, 2016 has only interpreted the provisions of Section 32A and applied them to the facts at hand, to declare that the attachment of the Attached Properties by the ED must come to an end. It is possible that in a given case, the application of Section 32A of the IBC, 2016 may have an effect on existing and intended attachments and prosecution by enforcement agencies operating under laws such as the PMLA, 2002. However, since both Section 32A and Section 60(5) are non-obstante provisions, they would prevail, with no room for concern, real or imagined, about any conflict between legislations. Therefore, the NCLT has the jurisdiction to direct the Enforcement Directorate to release the attached properties once the Resolution Plan in respect of the said Corporate Debtor is approved, in light of Section 32A of the IBC.