TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....] is illegal and void calling in question the panchanama drawn during the search and seizure and the order dated 30.12.2025 [Annexure-A] under Section 17[1A] of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [for short, 'the Act']. 2. This Court, on 19.01.2026, has heard Sri. Sajan Poovayya, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, on the petitioner's limited request for an order to operate the accounts under the impugned order dated 30.12.2025 to disburse the salaries and contractual/statutory dues. This Court has permitted the petitioner to file, with the respondent, the details of the employees to whom the petitioner proposes to defray the salaries observing, on 27.01.2026, that the respondent must have an opportunity.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of adjudication under section 8, such property may, if seized, be retained or if frozen, may continue to remain frozen, for a period of not exceeding one hundred and eighty days from the day on which such property was seized or frozen, as the case may be.], record reasons to believe why there must be continuance and after recording the reasons for belief may continue the freezing for a period not exceeding 180 days. On the expiry of the continuation of freezing, the person concerned must be at liberty to operate their account as envisaged under Section 20[3] [On the expiry of the period specified in sub-section(1), the property shall be returned to the person from whom such property was seized or whose property was ordered to be frozen un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hasizes that the impugned order dated 30.12.2025 is without jurisdiction. 6. Sri Madhu N Rao, the learned standing counsel for the respondent, submits that the Officer is authorized under Section 17[1] of the Act, recording reasons, to conduct search and seizure; and the authorized Officer during the search, based on the information gathered during the proceedings and the information furnished earlier, has directed freezing of the petitioner's account because it was the only practical recourse to ensure that the proceeds are not dissipated. The learned counsel contends that the petitioner is essentially invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to examine the merits of the decision based on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... India. A crucial fact, apart from the allegation that the petitioner is extended an unsecured loan from out of the proceeds of crime, will be that the Holding Company has resolved, much before the date of search and seizure, to entrust to the petitioner the day-to-day operations of its business with the responsibility of paying salaries. 9. The petitioner contends that if its employees are engaged in generating Micro-drama content, the Holding Company's employees are on the rolls for the conduct of the Non-Real Money Games segment of the business. These employees have been on the rolls prior to the proceedings. The crime alleged as against the petitioner [and its Holding Company] is that it has engaged in Real Money Games which would be....