loader

Disclaimer

The Bar Council of India does not permit advertisement or solicitation by advocates in any form or manner. By accessing this website, www.khaitanco.com, you acknowledge and confirm that you are seeking information relating to Khaitan & Co of your own accord and that there has been no form of solicitation, advertisement or inducement by Khaitan & Co or its members. The content of this website is for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertisement. No material/information provided on this website should be construed as legal advice. Khaitan & Co shall not be liable for consequences of any action taken by relying on the material/information provided on this website. The contents of this website are the intellectual property of Khaitan & Co.

Please accept the above
Close

Search

See all results for ""

Firm Matters

Discharge application allowed (PMLA | IBC Section 32A immunity)

  • 13-Feb-2026

Khaitan & Co successfully represented Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Ltd (“NVCL”) (successful resolution applicant) in securing the discharge of Vadraj Cement Ltd (“VCL”) in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) arising from the IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. money laundering matter.

VCL had been arrayed by the Enforcement Directorate (“ED”) as an Accused, with allegations in relation to proceeds of crime of approximately INR 952 crores. The ED had provisionally attached VCL’s properties in January 2020, and such attachment was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA in August 2021.

VCL had undergone Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), pursuant to which NVCL’s resolution plan (unanimously approved by the Committee of Creditors) was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai on 1 April 2025. On behalf of NVCL, it was argued that Section 32A of the IBC grants statutory immunity to the corporate debtor upon approval of a resolution plan (subject to change in management to persons unconnected with the erstwhile promoters), thereby entitling VCL to discharge. The ED opposed the discharge, including on the basis that such relief would create a precedent for an “amnesty route” and that the PMLA’s non-obstante clause should prevail over the IBC.

The Court allowed the discharge of the corporate debtor in view of the immunity under Section 32A of the IBC, while clarifying that the erstwhile officers/directors and persons responsible for, or involved in, the conduct/commission of the offence prior to commencement of CIRP would continue to be prosecuted notwithstanding discharge of the corporate debtor.

Matter Release

Discharge application

The core team was led by Manavendra Mishra (Partner), supported by Royden Fernandes (Principal Associate), Amol Jhunjhunwala (Senior Associate) and Parimal Kaushik (Associate).