PMLA writ jurisdiction is limited where statutory appeals exist and attachment or summons issues can be raised before the tribunal.

The article explains that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked where the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act provides an efficacious statutory appeal against orders of the Adjudicating Authority and the Director, including matters relating to attachment and possession of property. It also notes that challenges to initiation of proceedings, provisional attachment, confirmation of attachment, and summons were not accepted where notice had been issued and the parties had already been heard. The inclusion of the predicate offence in the PMLA schedule by later amendment did not, on these facts, invalidate the proceedings, and the summons challenge was treated as premature.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the statutory appeal mechanism under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) Whether the initiation of proceedings, provisional attachment, confirmation of attachment, and summons under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 could be challenged on the ground that the predicate offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was included in the schedule only by amendment in 2013.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the statutory appeal mechanism under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The statutory scheme provided an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against the orders of the Adjudicating Authority and the Director, and a further appeal to the High Court on questions of law or fact arising from the Appellate Tribunal's order. The impugned action relating to taking possession of property and the challenge to the summons were matters for the statutory forum, especially where notices had already been issued and objections were considered. The existence of an efficacious statutory remedy barred direct invocation of writ jurisdiction on these facts.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable on the ground of availability of the alternative statutory remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the initiation of proceedings, provisional attachment, confirmation of attachment, and summons under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 could be challenged on the ground that the predicate offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was included in the schedule only by amendment in 2013.

Analysis: The Court noted that notices had been issued before attachment and that the petitioners had been heard before confirmation of the provisional attachment, so there was no violation of natural justice. The contention that the inclusion of Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the schedule was only prospective did not assist the petitioners in the present proceedings. The challenge to the summons issued for investigation was also premature, since the petitioners were required to appear and participate before questioning any adverse order passed thereafter.

Conclusion: The challenge to the PMLA proceedings and summons was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petitions failed both on maintainability and on merits, and the Court declined to interfere with the enforcement proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides a complete appellate mechanism, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be invoked to challenge attachment or allied enforcement steps, particularly when notice and opportunity have already been afforded.

---