https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468444 A writ petition seeking substitution of properties provisionally attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 with fixed deposit security was not entertained because the petitioner had not first invoked Rule 5(5) of the 2013 Rules before the Authorized Officer. The court noted that the attached properties had been provisionally attached under Section 5 and confirmed under Section 8 of the Act, but declined to grant direct substitution relief in the absence of prior recourse to the statutory procedure. The petitioner was relegated to the alternate remedy available under the Rules. en-us Tue, 28 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 May 2026 18:55:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468444 A writ petition seeking substitution of properties provisionally attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 with fixed deposit security was not entertained because the petitioner had not first invoked Rule 5(5) of the 2013 Rules before the Authorized Officer. The court noted that the attached properties had been provisionally attached under Section 5 and confirmed under Section 8 of the Act, but declined to grant direct substitution relief in the absence of prior recourse to the statutory procedure. The petitioner was relegated to the alternate remedy available under the Rules. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 28 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468444