Provisional attachment orders under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act lapse after 180 days if not confirmed, ensuring legal safeguards against arbitrary actions.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard Mr Nishant Chothani, along with Mr Shaunak Sawant, for the Petitioners, and Mr Sachin Pawar, along with Mr Dewang S. Mhatre, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Public Prosecutor for the Respondents.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. Even otherwise, by our order of 14 November 2025, we had posted this matter for final disposal at the admission stage on 21 November 2025.

3. The hearing of this Petition was expedited by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its order dated September 03, 2021. The record shows that the matter was taken up by the Bench (Coram: G. S. Patel & Madhav Jamdar, JJ) on 6 December 2021, but was adjourned because the Advocates on record for the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents had filed their leave note. Matter was directed to be listed on 10 January 2022.

4. Thereafter, the records show that the matter was listed only on 16 September 2025 before the Coordinate Bench (Coram: Suman Shyam and Manjusha Deshpande, JJ). On this date, neither the Advocates for the Petitioners nor the Advocates for the Respondents appeared. Therefore, the matter was adjourned to 14 October 2025.

5. The matter was brought before this Bench on 14 November 2025, on which date, we were informed of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated 3 September 2021 and the directions for the expeditious disposal of this Petition. Accordingly, we inquired with the learned Counsel whether they were prepared to proceed with the final hearing of this Petition. However, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner fairly indicated that the learned Counsel for the 2^nd Respondent had recently been elevated to the position of Judge of this Court and, therefore, some time could be allowed to the Respondents to make alternative arrangements.

6. We requested the learned Counsel for the Petitioners to serve fresh notices upon the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents and posted this matter for final disposal on 21 November 2025. Mr Chothani submitted that fresh notices were indeed served upon the Respondents and proof of service was also tendered. Mr Sachin Pawar, Special Public Prosecutor, appeared on behalf of the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents [the contesting respondents]. Accordingly, the matter was finally heard on 21 November 2025 and reserved for orders.

7. The Petitioner challenges the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) dated 27 November 2020 under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) on several grounds. However, Mr Chothani, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, at the final hearing, submitted that, in terms of Sections 5(1) and 5(3) of the PMLA, the PAO ceases to have any effect after the expiry of 180 days from 27 November 2020. He submitted that the Petitioner was entitled to a declaration in this regard and for a consequential order of removing the restraints imposed by the PAO on the Petitioners’ attached properties.

8. Mr. Sachin Pawar, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing inter alia for the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) however submitted that for the purpose of computing the 180 days period prescribed under Section 5 of the PMLA, this Court would have to take cognizance of the orders made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 (SMWP) extending/excludin