Parallel Writ Proceedings After PMLA Attachment Not Permissible: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has held that parallel writ proceedings after Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) attachment is not permissible. The Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Uday Kumar has set aside a single-judge order that had quashed a provisional attachment issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), holding that the dispute had become academic in view of subsequent statutory proceedings and that parties should pursue remedies before the Appellate Tribunal. The dispute arose from a Provisional Attachment Order dated March 29, 2022 issued by the ED under Section 5(1) of the PMLA. The order attached five movable properties valued at approximately Rs. 63.5 lakh and four immovable properties valued at around ₹2.23 crore belonging to the petitioners. The attachment was linked to an investigation initiated through an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) relating to alleged financial dealings between companies associated with the petitioners and the I-Core Group, which was under investigation for operating a ponzi-type chit fund scheme. According to the ED, substantial funds had been transferred to entities connected with the petitioners, and these transactions were suspected to constitute “proceeds of crime” under the PMLA. The writ petitioners challenged the attachment on several grounds, including lack of nexus between the properties and proceeds of crime, procedural irregularities, and absence of adequate reasons in the attachment order. In June 2022, the Single Judge quashed the provisional attachment, holding that the statutory requirements had not been complied with and that the order failed to establish the necessary connection between the properties and alleged criminal activity. Challenging this ruling, the ED argued before the Division Bench that the writ petition itself was not maintainable due to the availability of alternative remedies under the PMLA. The provisional attachment was a preventive measure requiring only prima facie satisfaction, not conclusive proof. The Single Judge had exceeded writ jurisdiction by examining the merits of the attachment while statutory adjudication was already underway. The ED also pointed out that, after the provisional attachment, the Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the attachment under Section 8(3) of the PMLA, and the petitioners had already filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. The accused defended the Single Judge’s order, contending that the attachment lacked jurisdiction because it failed to demonstrate a causal link between the properties and any proceeds of crime. They argued that certain properties had been acquired before the alleged offences and that the attachment order lacked a proper money trail. It was also argued that jurisdictional defects and absence of reasons justified the exercise of writ jurisdiction despite the existence of alternative remedies. After hearing both sides, the Division Bench held that the controversy had effectively become academic because the provisional attachment had already been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. Appeals against that confirmation were pending before the Appellate Tribunal. The PMLA provides a comprehensive adjudicatory framework, including appeals and trial. The Court reiterated the settled principle that High Courts should ordinarily refrain from entertaining writ petitions where effective statutory remedies are available, particularly in specialized statutory schemes like the PMLA. The Bench also referred to Supreme Court precedent emphasizing that provisional attachment under the PMLA is an interim measure based on prima facie satisfaction, and writ courts must exercise restraint in interfering at that stage. Setting aside the Single Judge’s order, the Division Bench observed that the parties should pursue their remedies before the Appellate Tribunal and directed that the pending statutory proceedings be pursued expeditiously. Case Details Case Title: Enforcement Directorate & Anr. Vs. Sri Suman Chattopadhyay & Ors. Case No.: MAT 1214 of 2022 Date: 10/02/2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Arijit Chakrabarti Counsel For Respondent: Deepan Sarkar Click Here To Read Order

Parallel Writ Proceedings After PMLA Attachment Not Permissible: Calcutta HC

Membership Required

Most Popular

Absolute Confiscation Without Redemption Can’t Be Challenged After Delay in Filing Appeal: Delhi High Court Dismisses Importer’s Writ

Delhi High Court Quashes Transfer Pricing Order for Failure to Provide Relied-Upon Agreements to Assessee

CBDT to Consolidate Multiple Tax Audit Forms Under Form 26 Framework

New Income Tax Audit Form 26: What Businesses Need to Know?

Absolute Confiscation Without Redemption Can’t Be Challenged After Delay in Filing Appeal: Delhi High Court Dismisses Importer’s Writ

Delhi High Court Quashes Transfer Pricing Order for Failure to Provide Relied-Upon Agreements to Assessee

CBDT to Consolidate Multiple Tax Audit Forms Under Form 26 Framework

Parallel Writ Proceedings After PMLA Attachment Not Permissible: Calcutta HC

Membership Required

RELATED ARTICLES

Most Popular