Prior PMLA attachment did not invalidate benami attachment where the statute allowed an alternate provisional attachment route.

Prior attachment of the same properties under PMLA did not by itself invalidate provisional attachment under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The Tribunal held that the appellants could not rely on the earlier PMLA attachment after failing to disclose it at the relevant stage, and that the objection was raised belatedly after concealment of material facts. It further held that even if apprehension of alienation under section 24(3) was not established, the statute expressly permitted an alternate provisional attachment route under section 24(4)(b)(i), so the proceedings were not vitiated on that basis. The challenge failed and the benami attachment was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment and confirmation of benami properties under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 could be invalidated on the ground that the same properties had already been attached and confirmed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, thereby negating the apprehension of alienation contemplated under section 24(3).

Analysis: The appellants confined their challenge to the earlier PMLA attachment and argued that, once the properties stood attached under that statute, a fresh provisional attachment under section 24 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 was unnecessary. The Tribunal accepted the respondent's objection that the appellants had not disclosed the prior PMLA attachment at the relevant stage and could not raise the plea belatedly after concealment of material facts. It further held that, even assuming the requirement of apprehension of alienation under section 24(3) was not met, the statute expressly provided an alternate course under section 24(4)(b)(i), and the proceedings could not be nullified on that hyper-technical basis. The earlier relied-upon precedent was found distinguishable.

Conclusion: The challenge to the provisional attachment failed, and the confirmation of the benami attachment was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected, leaving the attachment under the benami law intact and permitting the appellants to be heard at the confiscation stage, if any.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute provides an alternate mode of provisional attachment, a prior attachment under another enactment does not by itself vitiate the benami attachment proceedings, particularly when the objection is raised after concealment of the earlier attachment.

---