Enforcement Directorate's provisional attachment order under PMLA confirmed; writ jurisdiction deemed inappropriate for premature intervention.
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court's Division Bench, comprising Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Uday Kumar, set aside a previous order that quashed a provisional attachment by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) related to a high-profile money laundering case involving Sri. Suman Chattopadhyay and others. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory mechanisms provided under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), discouraging premature judicial intervention.
The case revolves around the ED's provisional attachment order from March 29, 2022, which targeted movable and immovable properties worth crores, allegedly linked to fraudulent transactions with the notorious I-Core Group. The original attachment was challenged by the respondents on grounds of procedural lapses and lack of connection to proceeds of crime. However, the Adjudicating Authority later confirmed the attachment, underscoring its validity.
The High Court, in its latest judgment dated February 10, 2026, highlighted the statutory framework of the PMLA, which mandates a detailed process for addressing grievances related to money laundering cases. The court pointed out that the ED had complied with legal requirements, including the "reasons to believe" clause necessary for provisional attachment. It was noted that the burden of proof lies with the respondents to demonstrate the lawful acquisition of the attached assets, which the provisional attachment mechanism aims to protect pending further investigation and trial.
The court criticized the premature quashing of the provisional attachment by the Single Judge and reiterated the necessity for restraint in exercising writ jurisdiction. It emphasized that the statutory remedies under the PMLA, including appeals to the Appellate Tribunal, should be exhausted before resorting to writ petitions. The judgment aligns with the Supreme Court's stance in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, advocating for minimal interference in provisional measures under special laws like the PMLA.
The bench's decision underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining the integrity of statutory processes designed to combat financial crimes and protect public resources. By directing the parties to pursue the pending appeals with the Appellate Tribunal, the court affirmed the primacy of the statutory adjudicatory framework over judicial intervention at preliminary stages.
Bottom Line:
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Provisional Attachment - Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 - Courts must refrain from interfering with provisional attachment orders under PMLA unless there is a jurisdictional defect, violation of natural justice, or infringement of fundamental rights. Statutory remedies under PMLA should be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction.
Statutory provision(s):
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 Sections 5(1), 8(3), 26
Enforcement Directorate v. Sri. Suman Chattopadhyay, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2851404
