Hrishabh Soni Vs Deputy Director (Chhattisgarh High Court)
Summary: Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking substitution of six immovable properties attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) with a Fixed Deposit of ₹4,36,05,780. The petitioners contended that the properties represented equivalent value of alleged proceeds of crime and that an equivalent liquid security would adequately protect the Enforcement Directorate while enabling them to use the properties for business purposes. The Court examined Rule 5(5) of the Prevention of Money-laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013 and held that it operates only in the specific situation of jointly owned immovable property and permits acceptance of a Fixed Deposit to the extent of the concerned person’s share.
The use of “may accept” also does not create an absolute or mandatory entitlement. The Court held that neither the PMLA nor the Rules confer a general enforceable right to demand substitution merely because equivalent security is offered. Financial hardship or business inconvenience could not create such a right. It further noted that the substantive appeals challenging confirmation of attachment were already pending before the PMLAT and that Section 42 provides a statutory appeal to the High Court against an Appellate Tribunal order. In the absence of jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, manifest illegality or other exceptional circumstances, exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction was unwarranted. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed without costs.
