https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304708 Where the Prevention of Money Laundering Act provides an efficacious remedy before the Adjudicating Authority against provisional attachment, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be used to test disputed facts or the recorded reasons for attachment, making such a challenge premature. Territorial jurisdiction is not conferred merely because attached properties are located in Tamil Nadu; where the FIRs, investigation, charge-sheeting and pending proceedings are centred in Kerala, the substantial cause of action lies there. The doctrine of forum conveniens also supports refusal to entertain the petitions. The writ petitions were therefore held not maintainable and the petitioners were left to pursue statutory remedies before the competent forum. en-us Thu, 17 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Oct 2022 17:43:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304708 Where the Prevention of Money Laundering Act provides an efficacious remedy before the Adjudicating Authority against provisional attachment, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be used to test disputed facts or the recorded reasons for attachment, making such a challenge premature. Territorial jurisdiction is not conferred merely because attached properties are located in Tamil Nadu; where the FIRs, investigation, charge-sheeting and pending proceedings are centred in Kerala, the substantial cause of action lies there. The doctrine of forum conveniens also supports refusal to entertain the petitions. The writ petitions were therefore held not maintainable and the petitioners were left to pursue statutory remedies before the competent forum. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 17 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304708