The article looks at what happens when the PMLA and the Arbitration Act both apply to the same assets or facts. Relying on Swiss Timing and the Delhi High Court’s Lata Yadav, it concludes that PMLA proceedings, including a provisional attachment order (PAO), do not oust arbitral jurisdiction, so both can run in parallel. The real clash comes at enforcement: a confiscation order, backed by Section 71’s overriding effect, can defeat an award to the extent of inconsistency, while the effect of a confirmed attachment order (CAO) remains unsettled. It suggests a stage-based approach: arbitration proceeds at the PAO stage, tribunals tailor relief at the CAO stage, and courts apply severability on confiscation.
Please click here to read the full article by Dheeraj Nair, Partner; Pratik Pawar, Partner; Sahir Seth, Senior Associate; Meher Mistri, Associate; and Sanjana Pandey, Associate, published in Lexology.
Dheeraj is a Partner with JSA since 2009. Dheeraj has over two decades of experience advising and representing clients on complex arbitrations, litigations and regulatory proceedings.