https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462408 HC held that it has jurisdiction to entertain writ petition challenging provisional attachment order under Section 5 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Court interpreted Chief Justice's Circular dated September 30, 2022, ruling that "Central Agencies" cannot be stretched beyond its intended meaning. Enforcement Directorate does not fall within contemplation of police force or Central Agency akin to police force under PMLA provisions. Section 50 is merely enabling provision for gathering evidence, not making Director a civil court. Authority under Section 5 does not act as police force while passing provisional attachment orders, therefore matter falls under residuary jurisdiction rather than police inaction matters bench. en-us Wed, 24 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jun 2025 19:58:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462408 HC held that it has jurisdiction to entertain writ petition challenging provisional attachment order under Section 5 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Court interpreted Chief Justice's Circular dated September 30, 2022, ruling that "Central Agencies" cannot be stretched beyond its intended meaning. Enforcement Directorate does not fall within contemplation of police force or Central Agency akin to police force under PMLA provisions. Section 50 is merely enabling provision for gathering evidence, not making Director a civil court. Authority under Section 5 does not act as police force while passing provisional attachment orders, therefore matter falls under residuary jurisdiction rather than police inaction matters bench. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 24 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462408