Provisional attachment and proceeds of crime quantification left for trial while substitution option and bank rights were preserved.

Pending trial of the predicate offences and the connected PMLA complaint, the Tribunal declined to conclusively decide the challenge to the provisional attachment or the disputed quantification of proceeds of crime. It treated the questions on the period of alleged offence, the basis of computation, and whether excess production or environmental loss and restoration cost should govern as matters better examined in the trial proceedings. The attachment was maintained, but the appellants were left free to seek substitution in accordance with the earlier order, and all contentions were reserved for consideration before the Special Judge. The bank's rights over the mortgaged property were kept unaffected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the challenge to the attachment order could be conclusively decided at the appellate stage when the predicate offences and the money-laundering complaint were still pending trial, and whether the quantification of proceeds of crime based on alleged excess production should be adjudicated in the appeal.

Analysis: The appeal arose from confirmation of provisional attachment made in a matter linked to alleged environmental violations and the corresponding money-laundering complaint. The disputed questions concerned the period of alleged offence, the basis on which proceeds of crime had been computed, and whether such computation should rest on excess production or on environmental loss and restoration cost. The Tribunal noted that the predicate complaints were still to be tried, that the related PMLA prosecution was pending before the Special Judge, and that the issues raised by the appellants involved contentious factual and legal questions better examined in the trial proceedings. The Tribunal also noticed that the attached property was stated to be mortgaged with the bank and that the property could, if so chosen, be substituted by continuation of fixed deposit receipts in terms of the earlier order.

Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to finally adjudicate the disputed issues in the appeal, left the parties free to raise all material contentions before the Special Judge, and maintained the attachment subject to the appellant's option to seek substitution, with the bank's rights kept unaffected.

---