Territorial jurisdiction and statutory remedy under PMLA: writ maintainable, but interference refused in view of the adjudicatory mechanism.

A writ petition was maintainable because part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction where bank accounts had been attached. However, the Court declined interference with the provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, since a complete statutory adjudicatory mechanism under Section 8 was available to test the validity of the attachment and determine whether the properties were involved in money laundering. As the dispute involved prima facie allegations linked to a scheduled offence and disputed factual issues, the Court left the parties to pursue the statutory process and dismissed the petition.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the partial cause of action arising within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether interference was warranted with the provisional attachment and related proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 when the statutory adjudicatory mechanism under the Act was available.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the partial cause of action arising within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Since some of the petitioner-company's bank accounts maintained in Bihar had been attached, a part of the cause of action arose within the State. The existence of such territorial nexus was sufficient for invocation of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable before the Court.

Issue (ii): Whether interference was warranted with the provisional attachment and related proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 when the statutory adjudicatory mechanism under the Act was available.

Analysis: The allegations disclosed a prima facie case of scheduled offence-linked money laundering, and the Act contained a complete mechanism under Section 8 for adjudication of the validity of provisional attachment and for determining whether the properties were involved in money laundering. The Court declined to enter into disputed questions of fact or to pre-empt the statutory process, especially where the petitioner's challenge could be examined by the competent authority.

Conclusion: Interference was not warranted and the challenge to the impugned measures was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise writ interference and left the parties to proceed under the statutory mechanism, resulting in dismissal of the petition.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, a writ petition is maintainable under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, but the Court may decline interference when an efficacious statutory adjudicatory mechanism exists and the dispute turns substantially on issues of fact to be determined by that mechanism.

---