https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780789 HC allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge's order quashing the Provisional Attachment Order and its consequential proceedings, and upheld the validity of the attachment under Section 5 PMLA. The Court held that Section 66(2) is not a condition precedent to issuance of a PAO, the procedural safeguards in PMLA negate any breach of natural justice, and writ jurisdiction under Art.226 should not routinely be used to frustrate statutory remedies. The HC affirmed that money-laundering covers proceeds, subsequent transactions and appreciation in value, permitting attachment absent a separate preferential-share allotment finding. en-us Mon, 03 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Nov 2025 08:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780789 HC allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge's order quashing the Provisional Attachment Order and its consequential proceedings, and upheld the validity of the attachment under Section 5 PMLA. The Court held that Section 66(2) is not a condition precedent to issuance of a PAO, the procedural safeguards in PMLA negate any breach of natural justice, and writ jurisdiction under Art.226 should not routinely be used to frustrate statutory remedies. The HC affirmed that money-laundering covers proceeds, subsequent transactions and appreciation in value, permitting attachment absent a separate preferential-share allotment finding. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 03 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780789