Writ petition dismissed as statutory appeal under Section 26 PMLA available for challenging provisional attachment order

The Telangana HC disposed of a writ petition challenging a money laundering order confirming provisional attachment of immovable property. The court held that since an effective alternative remedy of statutory appeal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was available before the Appellate Tribunal, the writ petition was not maintainable. Following Supreme Court precedents in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and PHR Invent Educational Society vs. UCO Bank, the HC relegated the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal mechanism, noting the complex evidentiary issues involved required determination by the appropriate appellate forum.

---

---

Issues:
Petition seeking to set aside orders confirming provisional attachment of property under PML Act, challenge to the adjudicating authority's competence, availability of alternative remedy under PML Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Non-Resident Indian, challenged the provisional attachment of his property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act). The petitioner was not named as an accused in the FIRs related to money laundering offenses, yet his property was attached. The petitioner contended that the adjudicating authority lacked the necessary legal expertise to issue the attachment order. The respondent argued that the petitioner should have pursued the statutory appeal provided under Section 26 of the PML Act instead of filing a writ petition.

The court examined Section 8 of the PML Act, which outlines the adjudication process. It was noted that the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the provisional attachment order based on a complaint filed under the PML Act. The court highlighted that an appeal lies under Section 26 of the PML Act against such orders. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized the importance of exhausting alternative remedies before seeking relief through writ petitions. The court referred to cases such as United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal to underscore the principle of exhausting statutory remedies before approaching the court.

Considering the complexity of the issues involved and the availability of a statutory appeal under the PML Act, the court held that the petitioner should pursue the remedy of filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to avail the statutory appeal process under Section 26 of the PML Act. The court emphasized the need to adhere to the legal principle of exhausting alternative remedies before seeking judicial intervention. The judgment underscored the significance of following established legal procedures and mechanisms for redressal of grievances under the relevant statutes.

---