Court asserts jurisdiction over property substitution challenge, directs petitioner to pursue alternative remedy.

The court determined that the challenge in the petition regarding the substitution of provisionally attached property falls within its territorial jurisdiction. While recognizing the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the court emphasized that the Adjudicating Authority's refusal to consider the substitution request was based on jurisdictional grounds. The judgment directed the petitioner to treat the writ petition as a representation for substitution, outlining the process for further submissions and a hearing, with the potential for the substitute property to be attached under the provisional order if approved.

---

---

Issues: Territorial jurisdiction of the court, availability of alternative remedy under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, substitution of property provisionally attached.

Territorial Jurisdiction:
The judgment addresses the issue of territorial jurisdiction raised by the respondent, stating that the challenge in the petition is limited to the substitution of the property provisionally attached, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. It is emphasized that conflicting orders from different forums are not a concern in this specific matter, as the Adjudicating Authority involved is within the court's jurisdiction.

Availability of Alternative Remedy under Section 26:
The court acknowledges the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. However, it notes that even if the petitioner were to seek the same relief before the Appellate Authority or Tribunal, the assessment of the alternative property offered would still depend on the respondent. The Adjudicating Authority's refusal to consider the request for substitution was solely due to lack of jurisdiction, not the availability of an alternative remedy.

Substitution of Property Provisionally Attached:
The judgment provides directions for the petitioner to treat the writ petition as a representation to the respondent for the substitution of the attached property. The petitioner is given a timeline to make a further representation with supporting documents. The respondent is mandated to provide an opportunity for a hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order on the representation by a specified date. If the substitution is permitted, the substitute property will be deemed attached under the provisional order. It is clarified that the order should not be considered as a precedent due to the peculiar facts of the case.

In conclusion, the court addresses the issues of territorial jurisdiction, availability of alternative remedy under Section 26, and the substitution of provisionally attached property, providing detailed directions for further proceedings in the case.

---