https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793922 Writ jurisdiction was not entertained to quash a confirmed attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 because the provisional attachment had already been confirmed under Section 8(3) and the trial was pending before the Special Court. The Court held that the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy before the Special Court under Section 8(7) for lifting the attachment, so direct recourse to writ proceedings was inappropriate. en-us Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Jun 2026 07:07:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793922 Writ jurisdiction was not entertained to quash a confirmed attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 because the provisional attachment had already been confirmed under Section 8(3) and the trial was pending before the Special Court. The Court held that the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy before the Special Court under Section 8(7) for lifting the attachment, so direct recourse to writ proceedings was inappropriate. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793922