IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
ABDUL RASHEED @ DR.A.R.BABU – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writs challenging orders under the pml act must adhere to the statutory procedures. (Para 1) |
| 2. court confirmed that arguments can be presented before competent authorities. (Para 2) |
JUDGMENT
These three Writ Petitions (Crl.) are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed by the competent authority under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'PML Act').
2. This Court considered the maintainability of Writ Petitions filed against an order under Section 8 of the PML Act in detail in Mohankumar K. and Another v. Union of India and Others [2025 SCC OnLine Ker 4188], and this Court observed that the order under of the PML Act is to be challenged in accordance with the provisions of the PML Act. Therefore, these Writ Petitions need not be entertained. All the contentions raised by the petitioners in these Writ Petitions are left open and the petitioners are free to agitate the same before the competent authority in accordance with the law. If any appeal is filed, the time during which these writ petitions were pending before this Court shall be excluded while calculating the limitation period.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.