SC allows M3M Group plea for substitution of provisionally attached property
New Delhi, Jul 2 (PTI) The Supreme Court has allowed realty firm M3M Group's plea for substitution of the provisionally attached property by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Supreme Court has allowed realty firm M3M Group's plea for substitution of the provisionally attached property by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.(HT photo)
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and R Mahadevan, however, said the substitution of the property would be subject to nine conditions as suggested by ED.
"We have heard Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and considered the matter in detail. The petitioners, namely, M/s. M3M India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. M3M India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. have also filed an affidavit agreeing to the conditions. While we allow the substitution of the property as indicated...the same shall be subject to the conditions...." the bench said.
The top court's order came on a plea filed by M3M Group challenging the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order refusing to substitute their provisionally attached property.
One of the conditions submitted by ED before the top court states that M3M Group should establish clear and marketable title along with undisputed ownership of the assets proposed for substitution, supported by verifiable documentary evidence, to the satisfaction of the court.
"The substituted assets must be free from all encumbrances, including mortgages, liens, pledges or any third-party claims or security interests and a certificate to this effect must be submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner must provide a notarised undertaking that the substituted property will not be sold, transferred, or otherwise alienated during the pendency of proceedings," the condition said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
ED initiates probe against Mumbai-based firm for alleged fraud of Rs 60 cr
The Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Chandigarh has launched a money laundering investigation against a Mumbai-based firm, Ankur Drugs and Pharma Limited, and one of its directors, Giriraj Vijayvargiya. The move comes two years after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in Chandigarh registered an FIR against the firm for allegedly defrauding Punjab National Bank (PNB) to the tune of Rs 60 crore. The ED has filed an application in the Chandigarh District Court requesting the CBI to hand over all case-related records, including the FIR, chargesheet, and other relevant documents. The CBI had concluded its probe in March this year and filed a chargesheet in the district court. According to the complaint, on July 17, 2023, Nand Kishore Barnwal, chief manager, PNB, approached the CBI alleging that Ankur Drugs and Pharma Limited had, in 2009, sought a short-term loan of Rs 50 crore and a term loan of Rs 30 crore to expand its Baddi unit. The bank eventually sanctioned loans amounting to around Rs 60 crore. However, the company defaulted on repayments, and by 2012, the account was classified as a non-performing asset (NPA) with outstanding dues exceeding Rs 60 crore. The bank alleged that the company had inflated stock values in its stock statements to secure higher credit limits and diverted the sanctioned short-term loan for long-term purposes, in violation of loan conditions. This amounted to a deliberate act of fraud and misuse of funds, the bank claimed. Following the alleged default and misuse, the PNB filed a formal complaint with the CBI, which led to the registration of an FIR against the company and its director. The CBI's investigation resulted in a chargesheet earlier this year, paving the way for the ED to now begin a parallel probe under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Mint
4 hours ago
- Mint
Supreme Court reserves verdict in Bhushan Power insolvency case
The rehearing of the Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL) insolvency case concluded on Monday, with the Supreme Court's special bench reserving its verdict on challenges to JSW Steel Ltd's ₹ 19,700 crore resolution plan. The bench, comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, heard the matter afresh after recalling the Supreme Court's 2 May ruling that had quashed the JSW Steel's plan for alleged violations of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). That earlier decision sent shockwaves through the IBC framework, ordering banks to return ₹ 19,350 crore paid by JSW Steel and placing nearly ₹ 34,000 crore of total bank exposure at risk. This upcoming judgment is seen as JSW Steel's last opportunity to retain BPSL. Lenders led by Punjab National Bank backing JSW Steel's plan told the Supreme Court that their support was based on certain conditions, including an understanding that JSW Steel would share part of the business proceeds. The lenders are seeking over ₹ 6,155 crore. This includes ₹ 3,569 crore in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation recorded during the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) from July 2017 to March 2021, ₹ 2,509.88 crore in interest for a 538-day delay in payments to financial creditors, and ₹ 76.62 crore in interest to operational creditors. They argued that the prolonged implementation of the resolution plan deprived banks of returns that could have substantially reduced their losses. 'Interest and Ebitda—these two things must come. There should be fairness for creditors because we are banks. We deal with public money,' said solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the lenders. JSW Steel argued that the resolution plan did not mandate sharing Ebitda and that such earnings cannot be distributed unless expressly provided in the request for resolution plan, the plan itself, or under law—a position the committee of creditors had previously accepted. The company said its offer was made on an 'as-is, where-is' basis, taking on both risks and rewards, so profits during the CIRP were JSW Steel's, not the creditors'. JSW Steel added that granting the claim of over ₹ 6,000 crore would rewrite settled terms, set a dangerous precedent, and invite future disputes. Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing JSW Steel, contended that the company had acquired a loss-making firm and still went ahead with implementing the resolution plan, even though the process was delayed due to attachments by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). 'Even after the resolution professional (RP) started running the company by 2021, it was still a net loss. Loss reduced after the RP took over, but it was still net loss. I am taking over a loss-making company,' Kaul argued on behalf of JSW Steel. Former BPSL promoter Sanjay Singal and other dissenting creditors told the court that if JSW Steel's plan is scrapped, fresh bids should be invited instead of liquidation. They accused JSW Steel of deviating from commitments by infusing only ₹ 100 crore in working capital against a promised ₹ 8,000 crore, paying just ₹ 540 crore upfront to financial creditors, and delaying payments to operational creditors by over 900 days. The creditor also alleged misconduct and collusion with the former committee of creditors and resolution professionals. Petitions against JSW Steel's resolution plan also came from dissenting financial creditors, including Kalyani Group's Torsteel, the state of Odisha, and former stakeholders—citing delays in implementing the resolution plan and alleged irregularities. On 31 July, the Supreme Court recalled its 2 May ruling delivered by Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, which had set aside the resolution plan and directed liquidation under Article 142 of the Constitution. The recall was based on concerns about misapplication of IBC principles, reliance on factual inaccuracies, and consideration of arguments not raised during original hearings. BPSL's insolvency process began in July 2017 following petitions by Punjab National Bank and other lenders over unpaid dues exceeding ₹ 47,000 crore. BPSL was among 12 large defaulters identified by the Reserve Bank of India for resolution under the IBC. JSW Steel, which offered over ₹ 19,000 crore, beat Tata Steel to emerge as the successful bidder for BPSL. The plan was approved by BPSL's committee of creditors in October 2018, by the National Company Law Tribunal in 2019, and by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in 2020. However, multiple challenges, including from dissenting creditors and the former promoter, delayed the implementation of JSW Steel's resolution plan until March 2021. Since the acquisition, JSW Steel says it has nearly doubled BPSL's production capacity from 2.3 million tonnes per annum in 2017 to 4.5 mtpa in 2025.
Mint
9 hours ago
- Mint
Govt plans changes to bankruptcy code to resolve clashes with money-laundering law
The Indian government is preparing amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to streamline its interplay with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) after asset attachments by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) highlighted conflicts between the statutes, two people informed about discussions in the government said. Close to a dozen court orders with conflicting interpretations of the immunity from prosecution and asset protection granted under IBC to an unrelated new management of the bankrupt company necessitated these legislative amendments, they added. The idea is to ensure that the two laws work cohesively, they said, adding discussions are underway at the highest levels of government about the legislative changes needed for this. 'Officials of the ministry of corporate affairs, the revenue department and the regulators have already held discussions on the matter. The government is attempting to bring a bill in the current session of Parliament, but if the necessary approvals take longer, it may be introduced in the winter session," said one of the two people cited above, adding that the specifics of the legislative changes would be finalised soon. Clarity needed A dozen or so court orders since 2018, including the 2 May Supreme Court order in the case of Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd, have raised questions about the interplay of the two laws and an urgent need for more clarity, said the other person cited above. On 2 May the Supreme Court said the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT's) stay on the ED's ₹4,025-crore asset attachment was invalid as NCLT and NCLAT could not review public law actions. That order also annulled JSW Steel's ₹19,300-crore debt resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel. The court, however, left open the interpretation of the IBC provision that protects assets from attachment by law enforcement agencies such as ED for pre-debt resolution offences, subject to riders. But on 31 July the Supreme Court recalled its judgement, terming it a case fit for review. Another ongoing case in the Supreme Court—committee of creditors vs Directorate of Enforcement—is considering questions on the primacy of IBC Section 32A over PMLA and NCLT's jurisdiction, said the first person quoted above. Section 32A of the IBC offers immunity from prosecution to the new, unrelated management of a bankrupt company and protects its assets from being attached for violations under the previous management. The idea is to encourage investor participation in distressed assets and give such companies the best possible chance of a revival by offering a clean slate. It took effect in December 2019 with the aim of furthering the government's goal of accelerating debt resolution and improving the health of the corporate and financial sectors. Subodh Dandawate, associate director - regulatory services at Nexdigm said, 'To uphold the IBC's objective and ensure legal clarity, it is essential to amend Section 32A, reinforcing its supremacy over conflicting statutes such as the PMLA during the bankruptcy resolution process." The 'clean slate' principle enshrined in the provision is vital to attract resolution applicants, he added. 'However, conflicts between the IBC and the PMLA – both containing overriding clauses – have led to inconsistent judicial interpretations. Courts have even held against the jurisdiction of NCLT and NCLAT in PMLA-related matters, creating uncertainty around Section 32A's application," Dandawate said. Queries emailed to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, the ED, the ministry of corporate affairs and the finance ministry remained unanswered.
