Restoration of properties under PMLA after the dispute became academic, with possession directed to be handed over.

Subsequent developments during the appeal rendered the dispute academic, so the Court declined to decide the larger question of law on restoration under Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. In that setting, it granted the practical relief sought by directing that the subject properties be treated as restored to the respondent and that possession be handed over, while keeping all rights and contentions open. The operative effect was a restoration order in favour of the respondent despite the unresolved legal question, with the appeal disposed of on the basis that no further adjudication was necessary.

---

---

Issues: Whether the subject properties, in view of subsequent developments during the pendency of the appeal, should be treated as restored under Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The appeal had become academic because of later events affecting the mortgaged properties and related proceedings. In that situation, the Court declined to decide the larger question of law and, while keeping all rights and contentions open, granted the practical relief sought by directing that the subject properties be treated as restored under Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and that possession be handed over to the respondent.

Conclusion: The relief on restoration of the subject properties was granted in favour of the respondent, while the question of law remained open.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of as having become academic, with operative directions protecting the respondent's claim to restoration and possession of the subject properties.

Ratio Decidendi: Where subsequent developments render the dispute academic, the Court may decline to adjudicate the larger question of law and pass appropriate restorative directions on the basis of Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

---