The Court held that merely because a particular property may have come to be provisionally attached under the PMLA, that does not confer on the enforcing authority under the aforesaid enactment, a superior or overarching interest either in the property or the proceeds that may ultimately be obtained upon its disposal.
Justice Varma said that apart from the provision of an appeal that may be taken against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, the aggrieved party is also granted a right to seek release of property even after it may have been confiscated in favour of the Central government.
“The statutes provide adequate means and avenues for redressal of claims and grievances. It could be open to a Resolution Professional to approach the competent authorities under the PMLA for such reliefs in respect of tainted properties as may be legally permissible. Similarly, and as was explained by Axis Bank, a PAO made by the ED under the PMLA does not invest in that authority a superior or overriding right in property.”
Ultimately the claims of parties over the property that may be attached and the question of distribution and priorities would have to be settled independently and in accordance with law, the Court added.
Source: Barandbench
