https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791172 A writ challenge to proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was held premature where notice had been issued under Section 8(1), the affected person had filed a reply, and the adjudication was still pending. The Court noted that the Adjudicating Authority must consider the reply, hear the affected person, and determine under Section 8(2) whether the properties are involved in money laundering. As the petitioner had already participated in the enquiry and had an efficacious remedy before the statutory authority, writ jurisdiction was not warranted at that stage and the challenge to the pending proceedings failed. en-us Wed, 15 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 May 2026 07:07:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791172 A writ challenge to proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was held premature where notice had been issued under Section 8(1), the affected person had filed a reply, and the adjudication was still pending. The Court noted that the Adjudicating Authority must consider the reply, hear the affected person, and determine under Section 8(2) whether the properties are involved in money laundering. As the petitioner had already participated in the enquiry and had an efficacious remedy before the statutory authority, writ jurisdiction was not warranted at that stage and the challenge to the pending proceedings failed. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 15 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791172