TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Provisional attachment of equity shares: refusal to release under s. 8(8) PMLA set aside for no hearing, Rule 3A(4).</h1> Whether refusal to release a provisionally attached asset under s. 8(8) PMLA could stand without affording a hearing and without recorded compliance with ... Money Laundering - Provisional Attachment Order - Petitioners were not afforded any hearing at all - impugned order does not reflect compliance with Rule 3A(4) - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The Petitioners were not afforded any hearing at all, and the impugned order does not reflect compliance with Rule 3A(4) - In fact Respondent No. 2, is agreeable to a fresh decision being rendered in a time bound manner. The impugned order dated 27th November, 2025, is set aside only insofar as it relates to Asset No. 6 in Table 27 (17% equity shares of Solitaire Security Services Pvt. Ltd.). The application under Section 8(8) PMLA shall stand remanded to the Special Court for fresh consideration limited to the said asset. Petition disposed off. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether a restoration order under Section 8(8) PMLA, insofar as it affects a specific attached asset, can be sustained when the Special Court has not complied with the mandatory safeguard in Rule 3A(4) of the 2016 Restoration Rules requiring an opportunity of hearing to the owner/affected claimant. (ii) What relief is warranted where the restoration order is procedurally infirm only in relation to one identified asset, and the parties seek reconsideration confined to that asset. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i): Validity of restoration direction affecting an attached asset in absence of hearing under Rule 3A(4) Legal framework: The Court examined Section 8(8) PMLA in conjunction with the Prevention of Money Laundering (Restoration of Confiscated Property) Rules, 2016, specifically Rule 3A. The Court noted two embedded safeguards: (a) Rule 3A(1) contemplates consideration 'after framing of the charge' and envisages publication of notice inviting claims; and (b) Rule 3A(4) imposes an express bar against passing a restoration order without giving an opportunity of being heard to the owner of the property. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that, even if the question of timing under Rule 3A(1) were to be kept aside, the hearing requirement under Rule 3A(4) 'admits of no dilution'. Where a restoration direction operates upon identified attached property and an affected owner asserts a stake, the Special Court must at minimum issue notice and afford a fair opportunity of hearing. The Court found that the impugned order neither recorded submissions on behalf of the affected claimants nor reflected compliance with Rule 3A(4), and that no hearing had been afforded at all. Such non-compliance rendered the restoration direction unsustainable, apart from the broader audi alteram partem requirement. Conclusion: The restoration direction, insofar as it related to the identified attached asset (17% equity shares in the specified company), was set aside for failure to comply with Rule 3A(4) and lack of hearing to affected owners/claimants. Issue (ii): Appropriate scope of interference and remand when infirmity is confined to a single asset Legal framework: The Court exercised revisional interference to the extent necessary to cure the procedural illegality identified, while preserving the statutory adjudication by the Special Court under Section 8(8) PMLA read with Rule 3A. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted that the challenge was confined to one asset entry in the attachment table and found it appropriate to set aside the impugned order only to that limited extent. Given the acknowledged absence of hearing and the stated willingness of the applicant seeking restoration to have a fresh decision confined to that asset, the Court remanded the Section 8(8) application for reconsideration limited to the said asset. To ensure a procedurally compliant adjudication, the Court directed that the Special Court decide the matter uninfluenced by observations on merits in the impugned order and ensure compliance with Rule 3A, including hearing to affected owners under Rule 3A(4). The Court further kept all rights and contentions open (including maintainability, stage, and Rule 3A compliance) and structured timelines for filing reply and rejoinder, with directions for appearance and expeditious decision. Conclusion: The impugned restoration order was partially set aside only for the specified asset; the restoration application was remanded for fresh, limited reconsideration with mandatory compliance of Rule 3A (notably Rule 3A(4)) and with all merits and objections expressly left open.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
