https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793921 Where the Supreme Court had created a special restitution mechanism under Article 142 for PACL assets, the Delhi HC treated that scheme as distinct from the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 attachment process and held that the statutory provisional attachment could be displaced once it had served its purpose. The Court noted that restoration under Section 8(8) and Rule 3A is a limited route under the Special Court, that the Enforcement Directorate had earlier acted in aid of the Lodha Committee mechanism, and that the petitions had remained pending for years with an undertaking against alienation. The provisional attachment orders were set aside and the matter was remitted to the Lodha Committee, while the properties were kept protected from alienation or encumbrance until final determination. en-us Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Jun 2026 07:07:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793921 Where the Supreme Court had created a special restitution mechanism under Article 142 for PACL assets, the Delhi HC treated that scheme as distinct from the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 attachment process and held that the statutory provisional attachment could be displaced once it had served its purpose. The Court noted that restoration under Section 8(8) and Rule 3A is a limited route under the Special Court, that the Enforcement Directorate had earlier acted in aid of the Lodha Committee mechanism, and that the petitions had remained pending for years with an undertaking against alienation. The provisional attachment orders were set aside and the matter was remitted to the Lodha Committee, while the properties were kept protected from alienation or encumbrance until final determination. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793921