Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33358
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ, G.Arul Murugan, J
Sakthivel Munusamy – Appellant
Versus
The Special Director Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
W.P.Crl.No.784 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja
For the Respondents: Mr.N.Ramesh Special Public Prosecutor
Writ petition challenging provisional PMLA attachment dismissed due to alternative remedies and ongoing adjudication.
Headnote:First Paragraph: The petition challenges a provisional attachment order under PMLA dated 01.11.2025, attaching property measuring 4050 Sq.ft. The court noted the initial attachment is limited to 180 days, with adjudication proceedings reserved after petitioner's participation. The court found no grounds to entertain the writ. Second Paragraph: The issue framed is the validity of the provisional attachment order. The ratio decidendi holds that alternative remedies exist post-adjudication, and expeditious order will follow. Third Paragraph: The writ petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges provisional pmla attachment order. (Para 1) |
| 2. attachment limited; adjudication reserved. (Para 2) |
| 3. writ dismissed; liberty for remedies. (Para 3) |
This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the provisional attachment order dated 01.11.2025.
2. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the initial attachment is only for a period of 180 days. He further submits that order has been reserved in the adjudication proceedings, in which, petitioner has participated and the order will be passed as expeditiously as possible.
3. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, petitioner would be at liberty to avail remedy in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
