obligations as laid in the Preamble of the PML Act so that money laundering and proceeds of crime could be effectively dealt with. If the interpretation given by M/s. Peagsus Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. is accepted, then parties would mortgage such properties with the bank and run away with, on the one hand, the loans taken from the bank, and on the other by securing their property by mortgaging it to the bank and hence converting it to an „innocent‟ property. This to my mind would be in blatant violation of the PMLA as well as the Hon‟ble Supreme Court‟s judgment. Moreover if we see the intent of PMLA and DRT Act or SARFAESI Act, the purpose of these are entirely different. SARFAESI Act and the DRT Act deal with debts due to any secured creditor which shall have priority over all other debts and all revenues, taxes, cesses and other rates due to the Central Government, State Government or local authority. On the other hand, in PMLA there are no dues, debts, revenues, taxes, cesses and other rates which is payable to the Central Government, State Government or local authorities. Properties are attached under PMLA, they being proceeds of crime. They therefore do not fall under the above category as mentioned in the SARFAESI Act or the DRT Act and hence are mutually exclusive.
