The Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, on pending appeal under Section 25 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( PMLA ) in relation to provisional attachment.
The petitioner, Soumyendra Nath Banerjee, is aggrieved by an order of provisional attachment passed purportedly under Section 5(1) of the PMLA Act, 2002. The writ petition was filed after expiry of 180 days of the passing of the said order. It was contended by counsel for the petitioner that on the expiry of 180 days period, the provisional attachment order comes to an end and dies a statutory death.
Such coming to an end could have been avoided had the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the said order of provisional attachment in terms of Section 8(3) of the PMLA. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Adjudicating Authority had passed an order confirming the order of provisional attachment.
Challenging the said order of adjudication/confirmation of the provisional attachment order, the writ petitioner has already preferred an appeal under Section 25 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
A question that would arise is whether, in view of the availability of the efficacious alternative remedy of an “Appeal” under Section 25 of the PMLA Act of 2002, the writ petition should be entertained against the order of attachment or the confirmation thereof by the Adjudicating Authority.
In the case of State of H. P. v. GujaratAmbuja Cement Limited &Ors, it was held that it cannot be lost sight of that though the matter relating to an alternative remedy has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the case, normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy. If somebody approaches the High Court without availing the alternative remedy provided the High Court should ensure that he has made out a strong case or that there exist good grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction.
The Court of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha, observed that “In the backdrop of the availability of the efficacious alternative remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 25 of the Act of 2002 this court is of the view that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be entertained.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
