Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking defreezing and operation of the petitioner's bank accounts could be entertained when the provisional attachment had already been taken up before the adjudicating authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and whether limited permission to operate the accounts could still be granted.
Analysis: The challenge arose in the context of provisional attachment of the bank accounts as property alleged to be involved in money laundering. The statutory scheme under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 provides for provisional attachment on recorded reasons to believe, followed by prompt reference to the adjudicating authority and further proceedings under the Act. Since the attachment proceedings were already pending before the adjudicating authority, the petitioner was directed to place all contentions, including the validity of attachment, before that forum. At the same time, the Court balanced the competing considerations by permitting operation of the accounts only in respect of amounts deposited on or after the date of communication of the order.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not accepted as a vehicle to displace the pending statutory attachment proceedings, but limited operational relief was granted in favour of the petitioner in relation to later deposits.