Provisional attachment under PMLA: High Court follows earlier precedent and declines interference with tribunal relief

A challenge to an appellate tribunal order under the PMLA failed because the High Court had already, in earlier connected matters arising from the same common tribunal order, upheld the tribunal's findings on absence of a valid reason to believe for provisional attachment, mechanical issuance of notice, and related jurisdictional objections. Finding no distinguishing material and applying judicial propriety, the Court followed the existing precedent and refused to take a different view. The appeal was dismissed and the tribunal's direction setting aside the attachment in part and ordering release of properties remained intact.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate tribunal's order setting aside the attachment in part and directing release of the properties warranted interference in the appeal under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The impugned order was examined in the backdrop of earlier decisions of the same High Court arising from the same common order of the tribunal and involving substantially similar facts and reasoning. The Court found that the earlier Division Bench had already considered the tribunal's findings on the absence of valid reason to believe for provisional attachment, the alleged mechanical issue of notice under Section 8(1), and the related jurisdictional objections. In view of judicial propriety and the absence of any material justifying a different view, the Court followed the earlier precedent.

Conclusion: The appeal failed and the respondent's order remained undisturbed.

Final Conclusion: The High Court declined to interfere with the tribunal's decision and left the impugned order intact, resulting in dismissal of the enforcement agency's appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a common tribunal order on provisional attachment under the PMLA has already been upheld or dealt with in earlier connected decisions on the same reasoning, and no distinguishing material is shown, judicial propriety warrants following the existing precedent and refusing interference.

---