PMLA attachment cannot defeat a confirmed auction sale certificate or bar writ relief where statutory safeguards were unmet.

A sale certificate issued after a public auction could not be refused registration on the basis of a later Enforcement Directorate communication and provisional attachment, because the auction had been completed and consideration paid before the restraint reached the registering authority; the purchaser's title had crystallised on confirmation of sale, and the PMLA safeguards for search, seizure or freezing had not been shown to have been followed. The existence of proceedings before the PMLA Tribunal did not bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226, as an alternate remedy is not an absolute restriction and the facts justified intervention. The registration refusal was therefore held unsustainable, and registration was directed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Sub-Registrar could refuse registration of the sale certificate of the auction purchaser on the basis of the Enforcement Directorate's later communication and provisional attachment; (ii) whether the availability of proceedings before the PMLA Tribunal barred the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Issue (i): Whether the Sub-Registrar could refuse registration of the sale certificate of the auction purchaser on the basis of the Enforcement Directorate's later communication and provisional attachment.

Analysis: The property was auctioned and sale consideration paid before any communication from the Enforcement Directorate restraining transfer was received by the registering authority. The statutory procedure under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires search, seizure or freezing to be carried out in the manner prescribed, and Section 17(4) requires timely movement before the Adjudicating Authority after seizure or freezing. Those safeguards had not been complied with. A sale certificate issued in a public auction is evidence of title, and the auction purchaser acquires title on confirmation of sale. In these circumstances, the registration authority had no legal impediment to register the sale certificate.

Conclusion: The refusal to register the sale certificate was unjustified and was set aside in effect; the auction purchaser was entitled to registration.

Issue (ii): Whether the availability of proceedings before the PMLA Tribunal barred the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Analysis: The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction. The property had already been sold in auction before the PMLA steps were initiated, and the facts justified judicial intervention notwithstanding the pending tribunal proceedings.

Conclusion: The writ jurisdiction was rightly exercised and the objection based on alternate remedy was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the refusal of registration failed, and the auction purchaser obtained relief directing the registration process to proceed; the PMLA proceedings before the Tribunal were left open for appropriate action in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory safeguards under PMLA for seizure or freezing have not been followed before the auction purchaser's rights crystallise, a subsequent attachment cannot defeat the purchaser's title or prevent registration of the sale certificate, and the availability of tribunal proceedings does not by itself bar writ relief.

---