Interlocutory protective orders under money laundering law may be maintained where they safeguard interests pending fresh tribunal adjudication.

A challenge to an interlocutory protective order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was found unwarranted because the existing attachment and undertaking already protected the Union's interest, and the appeal was viewed as an attempt to delay tribunal proceedings. The High Court declined interference and dismissed the appeals. In the connected remanded matter, where the tribunal had ordered rehearing and kept the merits open, the Court directed that the undertaking and status quo over the attached properties continue until fresh adjudication, in order to avoid prejudice and preserve the property position pending the tribunal's new decision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interference with the interlocutory order passed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was warranted. (ii) Whether the undertaking and status quo arrangement concerning the attached properties should continue pending fresh adjudication after remand.

Issue (i): Whether interference with the interlocutory order passed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was warranted.

Analysis: The appeal challenged an interim protection order that had already secured the Union's interest by attachment of property and by an undertaking that the respondents would not alienate the properties until the tribunal decided the matter. The Court found no valid basis for the challenge and treated the appeal as an unwarranted attempt to stall the tribunal proceedings. It also noted that the tribunal proceedings had remained pending for a prolonged period after the appeal was filed.

Conclusion: Interference was declined and the appeals challenging the interlocutory order were dismissed.

Issue (ii): Whether the undertaking and status quo arrangement concerning the attached properties should continue pending fresh adjudication after remand.

Analysis: In the connected matter, the tribunal had earlier remanded the case for rehearing after notice to all banks and had expressly kept the merits open. In view of that remand and the continuing seizure of the adjudicatory process by the tribunal, the Court considered it appropriate to preserve the existing arrangement to prevent prejudice to the parties and maintain stability of the property position until the tribunal passed a fresh order.

Conclusion: The undertaking and status quo arrangement was directed to continue until the adjudicating authority decided the matter afresh.

Final Conclusion: The High Court declined to interfere with the challenged interim order, dismissed the appeals against it, and preserved the existing property status pending completion of the remanded adjudication before the tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: A discretionary challenge to an interlocutory protective order will not be entertained where the impugned arrangement already safeguards the parties' interests and the underlying tribunal proceedings remain pending, while existing status quo may be continued to prevent prejudice pending fresh adjudication.

---