This case comment examines the legislative objective of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to streamline insolvency resolution and avoid delays, while highlighting conflicts arising from the coexistence of multiple special legislations such as the SARFAESI Act, the Recovery of Debts Act, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Focusing on Union of India v. Punjab National Bank, it analyzes the clash between insolvency proceedings and attachment of property under PMLA, particularly the ambiguity surrounding the term “proceeds of crime.” The paper critically evaluates the role and inconsistent application of non-obstante and prioritisation clauses across these statutes and underscores the need for authoritative clarification by the Supreme Court to ensure certainty in creditor claims and insolvency proceedings.
