https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388713 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held inappropriate where the Prevention of Money Laundering Act provided efficacious statutory remedies, including appeal before the Adjudicating Authority and further challenge before the Appellate Tribunal. Because the provisional attachment had already been confirmed, the petitioners were left to pursue the statutory appellate route. On provisional attachment, the Court accepted that Section 5(1) permits attachment on recorded reasons to believe based on material in possession, including urgent action under the second proviso, and rejected objections based on absence of search and the timing of scheduled offences. The attachment and bank restraints were not shown to be jurisdictionally invalid. en-us Fri, 07 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Nov 2019 11:46:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388713 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held inappropriate where the Prevention of Money Laundering Act provided efficacious statutory remedies, including appeal before the Adjudicating Authority and further challenge before the Appellate Tribunal. Because the provisional attachment had already been confirmed, the petitioners were left to pursue the statutory appellate route. On provisional attachment, the Court accepted that Section 5(1) permits attachment on recorded reasons to believe based on material in possession, including urgent action under the second proviso, and rejected objections based on absence of search and the timing of scheduled offences. The attachment and bank restraints were not shown to be jurisdictionally invalid. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 07 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388713