Krrish Realtech Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that person aggrieved by the provisional attachment order passed by the Adjudicating Authority should prefer an appeal to Appellate Tribunal under section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA]. Accordingly, writ petition disposed of.
Facts- The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners, inter alia , challenging the Provisional Attachment Orders issued under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The case of the petitioner is that it had initially approached the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6013 of 2022, assailing the order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 2926 of 2022, wherein no stay was granted in favour of the petitioner. In the aforesaid writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the petitioner had challenged an ex parte order dated 10.02.2022 passed by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana (DTCP).
Conclusion- Held that the petitioners are not precluded from availing prescribed statutory/appellate remedy in the first instance. In the given factual conspectus, the same would not be inefficacious. Section 26 of the PMLA specifically provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the Adjudicating Authority may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, the statutory scheme itself envisages that all questions relating to the validity, scope, and effect of an attachment order must first be adjudicated within the framework of the Act.
