https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791001 Availability of an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is a relevant factor in deciding whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should be exercised, but it does not automatically bar judicial review. An earlier interim order does not compel final adjudication in every case, although action made subject to the writ will ordinarily invite examination of legality. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order did not disclose a clear basis for declining writ jurisdiction or for relegating the party to the appellate remedy. The order was set aside and the writ petition restored for fresh consideration, with all issues left open. en-us Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 May 2026 09:09:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791001 Availability of an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is a relevant factor in deciding whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should be exercised, but it does not automatically bar judicial review. An earlier interim order does not compel final adjudication in every case, although action made subject to the writ will ordinarily invite examination of legality. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order did not disclose a clear basis for declining writ jurisdiction or for relegating the party to the appellate remedy. The order was set aside and the writ petition restored for fresh consideration, with all issues left open. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791001