TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions challenging the provisional attachment order were maintainable in view of the statutory remedy before the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act; (ii) Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction merely because the attached properties were situated in Tamil Nadu.
Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions challenging the provisional attachment order were maintainable in view of the statutory remedy before the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act provides a remedy before the Adjudicating Authority against a provisional attachment order, followed by further appellate remedies. The Court held that where such an efficacious alternative remedy exists, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 ought not to be invoked to examine disputed factual questions or the validity of the reasons recorded for attachment. The challenge to the provisional attachment was therefore premature in writ proceedings.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioners and in favour of the respondent.
Issue (ii): Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction merely because the attached properties were situated in Tamil Nadu.
Analysis: The Court held that the substantial cause of action arose in Kerala, where the FIRs were registered, the investigation and charge-sheeting took place, and proceedings were pending before the competent court. The mere location of some attached properties in Tamil Nadu did not confer territorial jurisdiction when only a minuscule part of the cause of action arose within the State. The doctrine of forum conveniens also supported refusal to entertain the petitions in this forum.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioners and in favour of the respondent.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were held not maintainable and were dismissed, leaving the petitioners to work out their remedies before the competent statutory forum in the appropriate territorial jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: When a statute provides an efficacious remedy before a specialised authority and the substantial cause of action lies in another jurisdiction, the High Court should decline writ interference under Article 226, especially in matters involving disputed facts and provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
