https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759791 Punjab and Haryana HC disposed of a writ petition challenging a Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) issued by the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The court held that entertaining the petition before the statutory 30-day period for the Adjudicating Authority's examination under Section 5(5) was inappropriate, as adequate safeguards exist in the Act. Relying on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, the court noted sufficient provisions ensure aggrieved persons can file objections before the Adjudicating Authority. The petitioner was relegated to pursue alternative statutory remedies, with the court making no observations on merits. en-us Fri, 04 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Oct 2024 14:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759791 Punjab and Haryana HC disposed of a writ petition challenging a Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) issued by the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The court held that entertaining the petition before the statutory 30-day period for the Adjudicating Authority's examination under Section 5(5) was inappropriate, as adequate safeguards exist in the Act. Relying on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, the court noted sufficient provisions ensure aggrieved persons can file objections before the Adjudicating Authority. The petitioner was relegated to pursue alternative statutory remedies, with the court making no observations on merits. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 04 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759791