The Calcutta High Court quashed an attachment order under the PMLA, affirming that mandatory safeguards cannot be bypassed without proper justification. The court emphasized the necessity of prior notice and opportunity to be heard.
Calcutta HC Quashes Flawed Attachment Order Lacking 'Reason to Believe'
The Calcutta High Court recently ruled on an attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), quashing it due to the failure to provide necessary procedural safeguards as mandated by Section 107 of the PMLA. The court underscored that the principles of natural justice—namely prior notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a strict adherence to the 'reason to believe' standard—are paramount in such proceedings.
The Court found that the attachment order did not satisfy these fundamental requirements, leading to a procedural impropriety that invalidated the action taken by enforcement authorities. This decision reflects the judiciary's commitment to upholding due process in matters where potential liberty and property are at stake.
Practitioners should note the ruling’s implications for how attachment orders are issued in the future. The emphasis on procedural safeguards will potentially require enforcement agencies to implement more rigorous standards to ensure compliance with legislative mandates, thereby influencing their operational protocols.
Citations
- Attachment Order (2023) Calcutta HC
