The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on October 14, 2025, delivered a detailed judgment in Vantage Point Asset Management Pte. Ltd. v. Gaurav Misra (Resolution Professional of Alchemist Infra Realty Ltd.) that answers several recurring questions about how the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), specifically Section 32A, interacts with provisional attachments under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The issue arose after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had provisionally attached property in January 2019 and a resolution plan for the corporate debtor was later approved by the adjudicating authority.
NCLAT took a pragmatic view. It confirmed that assets subject to a valid provisional attachment can nevertheless be listed in the information memorandum and considered as part of the resolution process the Insolvency Professional must disclose such assets and their legal status to prospective bidders. The Tribunal relied on the IBC’s requirement that the information memorandum contain details of assets and liabilities and held that provisional attachment does not automatically strip the corporate debtor of ownership or the right to include those assets in the estate.
At the same time, NCLAT carefully explained the limits of the IBC’s protective ambit. The tribunal reiterated that Section 32A which can free a corporate debtor and its covered assets from prior criminal liability and bar action against property once a compliant resolution plan is approved must be applied according to its specific conditions. If a plan is approved and the incoming management satisfies the statutory safeguards, Section 32A may protect property covered by that plan from future action, including attachment, seizure or confiscation, as defined in the section’s Explanation.
Crucially, the NCLAT also emphasized that PMLA and IBC operate in distinct spheres. Where an enforcement agency has validly attached property as potentially representing proceeds of crime, that attachment and the separate adjudicatory process under PMLA cannot be simply set aside because CIRP is ongoing. The tribunal made clear that the IBC’s non-obstante clauses do not automatically nullify or override the PMLA’s statutory regime for proceeds-of-crime where proceedings under PMLA are live or attachments have been validly made and confirmed.
NCLAT recorded that the approval of the resolution plan remains in place, subject to formal compliance (the SRA was to file the affidavit required under Sections 29A and 30(1) of the IBC). The bench explained that while Section 32A can, in suitable cases, cut off liability and protect property that is covered by a compliant, approved plan, the NCLT/NCLAT are not a forum to supplant or unwind a valid PMLA attachment challenges to the attachment must proceed through the PMLA adjudicatory route. In short: the resolution process and Section 32A give important protections, but they are not an automatic eraser of PMLA attachments made earlier and properly confirmed.
For restructuring lawyers, insolvency professionals, and bidders, the ruling clarifies two practical points. First, provisional attachments do not categorically exclude assets from disclosure or from being part of the resolution estate; the information memorandum must show their status. Second, even when a resolution plan is approved and Section 32A conditions are met, enforcement agencies’ prior PMLA actions where valid remain a live legal reality and must be addressed through PMLA remedies rather than by invoking IBC procedure alone. The decision balances the policy goal of “fresh start” for bona fide SRAs with the penal objectives of anti-money-laundering law
The judgment makes clear that SRAs and RPs must (a) be transparent about any attached assets in the information memorandum, (b) ensure all statutory affidavits and compliance steps under IBC are completed, and (c) if they want the attachment lifted, pursue the remedy available under PMLA (for example, before the adjudicating authority under PMLA or in the Special Court), because NCLT/NCLAT cannot act as a substitute forum to decide PMLA attachment validity.
