Three PMLA Provisional Attachments Challenged: Delhi HC refuses to Exercise Writ Jurisdiction [Read Order]

The Delhi High Court refused to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in a batch of petition filed seeking to quash three Provisional Attachment Orders (PAOs) issued under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

The Court held that the petitioners must pursue the statutory appellate mechanism, and directed that the Appellate Tribunal decide the pending appeals as expeditiously as possible.

The petitioner, M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd. and Amit Katyal filed against three PAOs No. 06/2024, No. 11/2024, and No. 02/2025 issued in connection with ECIR GNZO/04/2023. These were based on multiple FIRs alleging large-scale diversion of homebuyer funds and failure to deliver plots in real estate projects in Gurugram.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

The petitioners, represented by Advocate Kapil Sibal and Vikas Pahwa, argued that the ED suppressed crucial facts, including that five of the eight FIRs forming the basis of the ECIR had already been quashed or closed. They submitted that the only surviving FIR No. 30/2019 now contains only Section 406 IPC, which is not a scheduled offence and is not even mentioned in the ECIR, depriving ED of jurisdiction.

They alleged that FIR No. 439/2024 was later engineered to cure this defect, contended that the attachments violated Supreme Court ordered status quo on the project land, and challenged the validity of a single member Adjudicating Authority under Section 6 of PMLA.

The respondents, represented by Ripudaman Bhardwaj and Nidhi Raman and Zoheb Hossain argued that the petitions were infructuous since two PAOs had already been confirmed and appeals filed before the Appellate Tribunal, making writ proceedings impermissible.

Get a Handbook on TDS Including TCS as Amended up to Finance Act 2024, Click Here

Bench of Justice Sachin Datta, held that the PMLA provides a complete and efficacious statutory remedy through the Appellate Tribunal and that the High Court should ordinarily not interfere under Article 226 when such remedies exist. The Court found that the issues raised ranging from validity of the ECIR, effect of quashed FIRs, alleged violation of Supreme Court orders, and the composition of the Adjudicating Authority were all matters appropriate for adjudication by the Tribunal. The Court observed that one PAO had been fully heard and reserved for orders by the Adjudicating Authority, while the other two had already been confirmed and appealed against.

Therefore, the High Court dismissed the petitions, reiterating that the Tribunal must hear and dispose of the pending appeals at the earliest.

The Court directed the Appellate Tribunal to adjudicate the appeals arising from the confirmation orders preferably within six months, and clarified that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the forthcoming order in the third PAO, a fresh appeal may be filed accordingly.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates