https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433500 Writ petitions challenging provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were not maintainable where the petitioners had already raised factual and legal objections before the competent Adjudicating Authority. The attachment disclosed no lack or excess of jurisdiction, and no breach of natural justice or exceptional circumstance was shown to justify bypassing the statutory adjudication mechanism. The HC therefore declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and left all issues open for decision by the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law. en-us Wed, 21 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Jan 2023 16:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433500 Writ petitions challenging provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were not maintainable where the petitioners had already raised factual and legal objections before the competent Adjudicating Authority. The attachment disclosed no lack or excess of jurisdiction, and no breach of natural justice or exceptional circumstance was shown to justify bypassing the statutory adjudication mechanism. The HC therefore declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and left all issues open for decision by the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 21 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433500