Mortgaged Properties Not Proceeds of Crime Can’t Be Attached Under PMLA | HC
- Blog|News|FEMA & Banking|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 11 November, 2025
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement vs. Sri Asadhullah Khan - [2025] 179 taxmann.com 686 (HC-Karnataka)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- D.K. Singh & Venkatesh Naik T., JJ.
-
Madhukar M. Deshpande, Adv. for the Appellant.
-
Bhargava D. Bhat & C. Vinay Swamy, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the CBI registered a case against borrowers for fraudulent transactions in the sanction and disbursal of loans and other credit facilities. The borrowers defaulted on repaying loans and credit facilities advanced to them, resulting in a loss to the bank.
It was also found that properties offered as securities for overdraft credit facilities by borrowers were not found to be sufficient to meet the outstanding liabilities of borrowers. A complaint was filed by the Directorate of Enforcement under section 5(5) of the PMLA, 2002.
The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a provisional attachment order in respect of 7 properties mortgaged to the bank by borrowers to avail a loan. However, the Appellate Tribunal had quashed the confirmation order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Thereafter, an appeal was made before the High Court.
It was noted that since 7 properties mortgaged to the bank, which were subject matter of attachment proceedings, were acquired prior to the alleged offences, and were not proceeds of crime, they could not be subjected to attachment proceedings under the provisions of the PMLA.
High Court Held
The High Court held that, since the bank was a secured creditor and had commenced recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, it was entitled to enforce its security interest by attaching the secured assets. Further, since the Adjudicating Authority had failed to serve a notice to the bank under section 8(1) proviso and section 8(2) proviso of the PMLA, no error was committed by the Appellate Tribunal.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Smt. Nasreen Taj v. Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement [2017] 88 taxmann.com 287 ((PMLA-AT), NEW DELHI) (para 17) affirmed
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
