Bank's Writ Petition Dismissed; Must Challenge Provisional Attachment via Appellate Tribunal per Money Laundering Act.

The HC of Madras dismissed a Writ Petition by a Bank challenging a provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court determined that the Bank should seek remedy through the Appellate Tribunal, as outlined in the Act, rather than through the HC. The Court emphasized adherence to the statutory framework and procedures for challenging provisional attachment orders, resulting in the dismissal of the Writ Petition without costs.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to provisional order of attachment under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras heard a Writ Petition challenging a provisional order of attachment issued by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, along with a show cause notice under Section 8 of the Act. The petitioner, a Bank, contended that the provisional attachment order was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, against which the Bank filed an Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The second respondent, represented by a Special Public Prosecutor, filed a Counter Affidavit justifying their actions. The Court noted that since the Bank had already appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, they should pursue their remedy there, as any person aggrieved by a provisional attachment order has an effective remedy under the Act. The Court held that the challenge to the provisional attachment order was not maintainable in the High Court, as the Bank should follow the procedure under the Act. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

In conclusion, the Court emphasized that the petitioner Bank should pursue their remedy before the Appellate Tribunal, as any challenge to the provisional attachment order should be addressed following the procedures outlined in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court's decision was based on the availability of an effective remedy under the Act for persons aggrieved by such orders, directing the Bank to follow the appropriate legal procedures. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the statutory framework and established procedures in addressing issues related to provisional attachment orders under the Act, ultimately dismissing the Writ Petition and closing the connected Miscellaneous Petitions.

---