https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754168 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not to be invoked where the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 provides an efficacious statutory remedy. The text explains that no recognised exception to the alternative-remedy rule was made out, as there was no jurisdictional defect, no natural justice breach in the jurisdictional sense, and no vires challenge. It also states that persons claiming an interest in attached property may seek restoration before the Special Court under Section 8 and Rule 3-A of the Restoration of Property Rules, 2016, and may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26. The challenge to attachment was therefore to be pursued through the statutory framework, not in writ proceedings. en-us Thu, 30 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754168 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not to be invoked where the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 provides an efficacious statutory remedy. The text explains that no recognised exception to the alternative-remedy rule was made out, as there was no jurisdictional defect, no natural justice breach in the jurisdictional sense, and no vires challenge. It also states that persons claiming an interest in attached property may seek restoration before the Special Court under Section 8 and Rule 3-A of the Restoration of Property Rules, 2016, and may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26. The challenge to attachment was therefore to be pursued through the statutory framework, not in writ proceedings. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 30 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754168