Writ Not Maintainable When PMLA Appellate Remedy Available; Single Judge’s Order Quashing Attachment Set Aside: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has set aside a Single Judge’s order that had quashed a provisional attachment of properties by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under PMLA, holding that the dispute had become academic in light of subsequent statutory developments and that the parties must pursue remedies before the Appellate Tribunal. The Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Uday Kumar has observed that when a statute provides a complete adjudicatory framework, parties must ordinarily exhaust the statutory remedies. It relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, which underscores that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions where an effective alternative remedy exists, save in exceptional circumstances. The case arose from a Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) dated March 29, 2022 issued under Section 5(1) of the PMLA in connection with an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered on March 15, 2021. The ED provisionally attached five movable properties valued at approximately ₹63.5 lakh and four immovable properties worth around ₹2.23 crore, alleging that they constituted “proceeds of crime” linked to financial dealings with the I-Core Group, a chit fund entity allegedly operating in a Ponzi-like manner. According to the ED, substantial funds amounting to over ₹9.83 crore were received by entities associated with the respondents from I-Core-linked companies. The agency contended that the transactions were structured as a façade to siphon illicit funds and that the attached assets were either directly or indirectly derived from criminal activity. The respondents challenged the attachment before the writ court, contending that there was no causal nexus between the properties and any scheduled offence, that several properties predated the alleged transactions, and that the ED had failed to satisfy the statutory requirement of recording valid “reasons to believe.” The Single Judge, after hearing the parties, quashed the provisional attachment order on June 28, 2022, holding that the statutory requirements under Section 5(1) of the PMLA had not been complied with. The Court found that the attachment order lacked a demonstrable nexus between the properties and proceeds of crime and suffered from jurisdictional infirmities. The ED challenged this decision in appeal, arguing that the writ court had prematurely interfered in a matter where a complete statutory mechanism existed, including adjudication under Section 8 and appeal under Section 26 of the PMLA. During the pendency of the writ proceedings, the ED filed a complaint before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 5(5) of the Act. On September 23, 2022, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the provisional attachment under Section 8(3), subject to the outcome of the writ proceedings. The respondents thereafter filed statutory appeals under Section 26 of the PMLA before the Appellate Tribunal (PMLA), New Delhi. Those appeals remain pending adjudication. The Division Bench held that in view of the confirmation of the attachment by the Adjudicating Authority and the pendency of appeals before the Appellate Tribunal, the controversy had become “purely academic” and did not warrant adjudication on merits in writ jurisdiction. The Bench further referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, which upheld the constitutional validity of the PMLA and emphasized judicial restraint in interfering with provisional attachments, noting that the “reasons to believe” requirement entails only a prima facie satisfaction at the provisional stage. According to the Court, none of the recognized exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy—such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or breach of fundamental rights—were attracted in the present case. Setting aside the Single Judge’s order, the Division Bench directed that the parties pursue their remedies before the Appellate Tribunal. It observed that parallel adjudication in writ proceedings, after confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority, would lead to multiplicity of litigation and undermine the statutory scheme of the PMLA. Case Details Case Title: ED Versus Sri Suman Chattopadhyay & Ors. Case No.: MAT 1214 of 2022 Date: 10.02.2026 Counsel For Appellant: Arijit Chakrabarti Counsel For Respondent: Deepan Sarkar Click Here To Read Order

Writ Not Maintainable When PMLA Appellate Remedy Available; Single Judge’s Order Quashing Attachment Set Aside: Calcutta HC

Membership Required

Latest articles

Madras High Court Stays GST Assessment and Penalty Orders Over Alleged Lack of Jurisdiction in DGGI Case

Delay in Filing EXP-3 Return Can’t Deny Service Tax Exemption on Export Commission Services: CESTAT

CESTAT Grants Reverse Charge Benefit to Works Contractor, Cuts Service Tax Liability While Upholding Extended Limitation

Limitation Can’t Run Without Valid Service of Order: CESTAT

More like this

Madras High Court Stays GST Assessment and Penalty Orders Over Alleged Lack of Jurisdiction in DGGI Case

Delay in Filing EXP-3 Return Can’t Deny Service Tax Exemption on Export Commission Services: CESTAT

CESTAT Grants Reverse Charge Benefit to Works Contractor, Cuts Service Tax Liability While Upholding Extended Limitation

About us

Company

Categories