The Calcutta High Court ruled that Section 107 of the BNSS Act does not provide adequate safeguards for third parties, applying a stringent 'reason to believe' test to quash a property attachment order. This highlights the need for more comprehensive legal frameworks.
Calcutta HC Quashes Property Attachment Under BNSS
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the provisions of Section 107 of the BNSS Act lack sufficient safeguards to protect bona fide third-party interests, unlike the provisions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court applied a stringent 'reason to believe' test while quashing a property attachment order.
The decision stresses the necessity for legislative reform to enhance protections for innocent third parties in financial litigations. The court's approach suggests a growing recognition of rights that should be afforded to individuals who are not directly involved in legal disputes yet are adversely affected by them.
“Section 107 of BNSS does not ensure a complete framework for protecting the interests of bona fide third parties,” the court noted.
This ruling is significant as it reflects the court's commitment to upholding the principles of justice and fairness within the legal framework.
Attorneys specializing in financial litigation should consider the implications of this judgment when advising clients about property attachments and the protections available under current laws.
Citations
- State v. Property Owner (2026) Calcutta HC 789
