https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191383 The court determined that the challenge in the petition regarding the substitution of provisionally attached property falls within its territorial jurisdiction. While recognizing the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the court emphasized that the Adjudicating Authority's refusal to consider the substitution request was based on jurisdictional grounds. The judgment directed the petitioner to treat the writ petition as a representation for substitution, outlining the process for further submissions and a hearing, with the potential for the substitute property to be attached under the provisional order if approved. en-us Thu, 05 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Apr 2017 10:10:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191383 The court determined that the challenge in the petition regarding the substitution of provisionally attached property falls within its territorial jurisdiction. While recognizing the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the court emphasized that the Adjudicating Authority's refusal to consider the substitution request was based on jurisdictional grounds. The judgment directed the petitioner to treat the writ petition as a representation for substitution, outlining the process for further submissions and a hearing, with the potential for the substitute property to be attached under the provisional order if approved. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 05 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191383