https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797881 Provisional attachment challenges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 must ordinarily proceed through statutory adjudication where the Adjudicating Authority has yet to determine validity after notice and hearing. Section 8 provides for adjudication, followed by appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 and further appeal to the High Court under Section 42. Although Article 226 jurisdiction is not barred by an alternative remedy, writ intervention is ordinarily declined where those remedies are efficacious, absent patent lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or manifest statutory illegality. Objections concerning proceeds of crime, reasons to believe, and attachment validity fall for consideration within that statutory process. en-us Wed, 12 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Aug 2026 14:35:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797881 Provisional attachment challenges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 must ordinarily proceed through statutory adjudication where the Adjudicating Authority has yet to determine validity after notice and hearing. Section 8 provides for adjudication, followed by appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 and further appeal to the High Court under Section 42. Although Article 226 jurisdiction is not barred by an alternative remedy, writ intervention is ordinarily declined where those remedies are efficacious, absent patent lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or manifest statutory illegality. Objections concerning proceeds of crime, reasons to believe, and attachment validity fall for consideration within that statutory process. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 12 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797881