Provisional attachment cannot be confirmed after a High Court quashes the underlying attachment proceedings.

An adjudicatory authority cannot confirm or continue a provisional attachment when a High Court has already quashed the underlying attachment order. The confirmation order was passed in disregard of the subsisting judicial decision and therefore lacked legal basis. The attachment could not survive, and the impugned confirmation was set aside, with the attached property required to be returned in accordance with procedure.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned confirmation of provisional attachment was sustainable when the High Court had already quashed the underlying provisional attachment order.

Analysis: The appeal arose from an order confirming provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act after the High Court had, in proceedings challenging the attachment, quashed the provisional attachment order. Once the High Court had set aside the attachment proceedings, the Adjudicating Authority could not validly proceed to confirm the same attachment order. The order under challenge was therefore passed in disregard of the subsisting decision of the High Court and could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The confirmation order was unsustainable and had to be set aside, resulting in the attachment ceasing to exist and the appellant being entitled to return of the attached property in accordance with procedure.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the impugned order was made contrary to an earlier binding judicial order quashing the provisional attachment, leaving no basis for continued attachment.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudicatory authority cannot confirm or continue an attachment in defiance of a subsisting order of a higher court quashing the very attachment proceedings.

---