https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429179 The court found the writ petition maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, allowing for interference due to a patent jurisdictional error. It held that provisional attachment of third-party property under the PMLA was without jurisdiction as there was no nexus to the alleged crime, leading to a gross abuse of process. The court determined that quashing the Section 5 order nullified any connected adjudication under Section 8, requiring both to be quashed. Partial interim relief was granted, restraining coercive action on immovable properties, while allowing actions on shares and office room. The court found a strong case for the petitioners regarding immovable properties, scheduling the matter for final hearing. en-us Mon, 26 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Oct 2022 08:17:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429179 The court found the writ petition maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, allowing for interference due to a patent jurisdictional error. It held that provisional attachment of third-party property under the PMLA was without jurisdiction as there was no nexus to the alleged crime, leading to a gross abuse of process. The court determined that quashing the Section 5 order nullified any connected adjudication under Section 8, requiring both to be quashed. Partial interim relief was granted, restraining coercive action on immovable properties, while allowing actions on shares and office room. The court found a strong case for the petitioners regarding immovable properties, scheduling the matter for final hearing. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 26 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429179