PMLA provisional attachment: writ interference is limited, and general bank restraint directions cannot extend beyond the attachment order.

The PMLA provides a complete statutory scheme for provisional attachment, adjudication, confirmation, appeal and further challenge, so writ interference is ordinarily inappropriate and parties must pursue the prescribed remedies before the statutory forums. A provisional attachment under Section 5 is an interim measure, and the existence of this tiered mechanism justified relegating the challengers to that process. Section 54 only empowers specified officers to assist enforcement; it does not create an independent power to impose binding bank restraints. Accordingly, any general direction freezing bank operations ceased to have effect once the provisional attachment order covered the identified properties.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ court should interfere with provisional attachment proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in view of the statutory appellate and adjudicatory remedies; (ii) Whether the directions issued by the Assistant Director under Section 54 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 restraining bank transactions could survive after the provisional attachment order.

Issue (i): Whether the writ court should interfere with provisional attachment proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in view of the statutory appellate and adjudicatory remedies.

Analysis: The Act creates a complete mechanism for attachment, adjudication, confirmation, appeal, and further challenge. A provisional attachment under Section 5 is only an interim measure, followed by adjudication under Section 8 and appeal under Section 26, with further recourse under Section 42. The existence of this tiered statutory scheme makes writ interference inappropriate except in exceptional circumstances. The nature of the remedy under the Act therefore justified relegating the appellants to the statutory forums.

Conclusion: The challenge to the provisional attachment was not maintainable in writ jurisdiction and the appellants were rightly relegated to the statutory remedies.

Issue (ii): Whether the directions issued by the Assistant Director under Section 54 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 restraining bank transactions could survive after the provisional attachment order.

Analysis: Section 54 only enables specified officers and authorities to assist in the enforcement and inquiry process. It does not confer an independent power to issue binding interdictory directions freezing bank operations. Once a provisional attachment order is made under Section 5(1) in respect of identified properties, any earlier general restraint issued by an officer under Section 54 loses efficacy to the extent it is inconsistent with the attachment order. The affected parties may still pursue their objections before the adjudicating authority under the Act.

Conclusion: The Assistant Director's restraint directions had no continuing legal effect beyond the properties specifically covered by the provisional attachment order.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on the main challenge and the appellants were directed to work out their remedies under the statutory scheme, while the bank restraint was clarified to be inoperative except as to properties covered by the provisional attachment proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute provides a complete hierarchy of remedies for provisional attachment and adjudication, writ interference is ordinarily unwarranted, and a general assistance power cannot be used to create an independent restraint on property or bank operations beyond the limits of a valid provisional attachment order.

---