Prompt supply of attachment orders and protection against premature dispossession preserve the statutory right of appeal under PMLA.

Prompt supply of an order confirming attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is necessary so the statutory appellate remedy is not made illusory; where the order is pronounced in open court, the relevant procedure contemplates timely delivery to parties, and delayed service is inconsistent with that safeguard. The article also notes that taking physical possession of attached immovable property before the appeal period expires may frustrate the right to challenge the attachment, so possession should not be enforced in a manner that defeats appellate access. The discussion emphasises preservation of an effective appeal and limited protective restraint on dispossession.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order confirming attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 had to be supplied promptly to enable the affected party to exercise appellate remedies; (ii) Whether physical possession of the attached immovable property could be taken before the expiry of time to avail the statutory appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the order confirming attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 had to be supplied promptly to enable the affected party to exercise appellate remedies.

Analysis: An order passed by the Adjudicating Authority ought to be made available to the parties within a reasonable time so that the remedy of appeal is not rendered illusory. Where the order is pronounced in open court, Regulation 27 of the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013 contemplates delivery of a copy on the date of pronouncement if the parties are present. The delayed supply of the order in the present case was inconsistent with that requirement.

Conclusion: The order was required to be supplied promptly, and the delayed service was held impermissible.

Issue (ii): Whether physical possession of the attached immovable property could be taken before the expiry of time to avail the statutory appeal.

Analysis: The statutory appeal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 carries a fixed period for invocation, and dispossession before that period expires may defeat the right of appeal. Although the Rules contemplate notice before taking possession, the Court balanced the statutory scheme with the need to preserve an effective appellate remedy and granted a short protective period in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: Physical possession was restrained for 20 days to permit the petitioner to avail appellate remedies.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the limited extent of protecting the petitioner's appellate remedy and deferring possession for a short period, while leaving the broader question of law open.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory appellate remedy must be preserved by ensuring prompt supply of the operative order and by not taking possession of attached immovable property in a manner that frustrates the period available for appeal.

---