SC held that the respondent lacked authority to issue subsequent...

SC held that the respondent lacked authority to issue subsequent provisional attachment orders under sub-section (1) of Section 83 after the initial provisional attachment had ceased by efflux of one year under sub-section (2); permitting renewal would render sub-section (2) otiose and exceed executive power by effectively supplanting statutory prescription. The Court reaffirmed that executive measures may supplement but cannot supplant statutory law and that draconian attachment powers must be construed so as to preserve legislative intent. The impugned orders dated 13 Nov and 18 Dec 2024 were declared invalid, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant's bank accounts ordered defreezed and made operable upon production of this judgment.