Tripura HC Keeps Stay On ED’s PMLA Property Attachment In Place Pending Full Hearing On Section 5 Compliance

The Directorate of Enforcement sought recall of the High Court’s interim order dated 16 September 2026, which had suspended a provisional attachment proceeding initiated on 31 July 2026 under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

The applicants argued that the writ petition should not be entertained because the PMLA provides statutory remedies before the Adjudicating Authority and appellate forums, and that the attachment was time-limited. The petitioner opposed vacation of the stay, alleging non-compliance with Section 5(5) and pointing out that he was neither named nor implicated in the five FIRs relied on in the proceeding.

Section 5 of the PMLA authorises provisional attachment where the statutory conditions are met; under Section 5(5), the attaching officer must file a complaint stating the facts of the attachment before the Adjudicating Authority within thirty days.

The PMLA provides an adjudication and appellate framework, including remedies under Sections 8, 26 and 42; however, the existence of an alternative remedy does not invariably bar the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226, including where a recognised exception—such as an alleged jurisdictional defect or breach of natural justice—is raised (Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks).

The Court also referred to Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India on the safeguards and statutory procedure governing provisional attachment, and to P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement on the limited grounds for judicial interference with an investigation.

The Court noted that the applicants confined their submissions to the request to vacate the stay and did not address the merits of the writ petition as a whole.

It considered the petitioner’s specific allegations that Section 5(5) had not been complied with and that the cited FIRs contained no allegation against him. In the Court’s view, those grievances, including whether the attachment complied with Section 5(5), required detailed examination in the writ petition; it did not finally determine either maintainability or the legality of the attachment at this interlocutory stage.

Finding the balance of convenience in the petitioner’s favour, it declined to vacate the existing interim order.

The interim order dated 16 September 2026 suspending the proceeding initiated on 31 July 2026 was continued and made absolute pending disposal of the writ petition. The connected writ petitions were listed for hearing on 24 November 2026.