Delhi High Court Upholds Statutory Remedy Under PMLA, Dismisses Writ Petitions

Court directs petitioners to approach Appellate Tribunal for grievances against Provisional Attachment Orders

In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court declined to entertain writ petitions filed by Ms. Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd. challenging Provisional Attachment Orders under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The Court emphasized the availability of an alternative statutory remedy provided under Section 26 of the PMLA, directing the petitioners to address their grievances before the Appellate Tribunal.

The case involved multiple writ petitions filed by Ms. Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Amit Katyal, contesting Provisional Attachment Orders issued by the Enforcement Directorate. The petitioners argued that these orders violated Supreme Court directives to maintain status quo regarding possession of certain plots. They further claimed that the attachments were based on predicate offenses that were either quashed or closed.

However, Justice Sachin Datta, presiding over the matter, highlighted that the PMLA offers a comprehensive mechanism for redressal through its Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Tribunal. The Court noted that two of the Provisional Attachment Orders had already been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, and appeals against these confirmations had been filed before the Appellate Tribunal. The third petition was pending judgment after proceedings concluded before the Adjudicating Authority.

The Court reiterated the principle that when a statute provides a self-contained appellate mechanism, recourse to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not maintainable. Citing various precedents, the Court underscored the necessity for parties to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking intervention from constitutional courts.

The judgment also addressed the contention regarding the composition of the Adjudicating Authority, affirming that a single-member bench is valid under the statutory provisions of the PMLA. The Court dismissed arguments that the proceedings were coram non judice, directing such issues to be raised before the Appellate Tribunal.

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court disposed of the petitions, granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue their appeals and urging the Appellate Tribunal to expedite the hearing process. The judgment underscores the judiciary's stance on adhering to statutory remedies and maintaining judicial consistency.

Bottom Line:

The Delhi High Court declined to entertain writ petitions challenging Provisional Attachment Orders under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), emphasizing the existence of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 26 of the PMLA for appeals before the Appellate Tribunal.

Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Sections 5, 6, 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

Ms. Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2803990