Telangana High Court
Shri. B. Sreenivasa Gandhi vs Government Of India on 10 July, 2026
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
W.P.No.4497 of 2026
10.07.2026
Between:
Mr.B.Sreenivasa Gandhi and others.
...Petitioners
AND
Government of India through Adjudicating
Authority Prevention of Money Laundering Act
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi and another.
...Respondents
ORDER:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)
Heard Mr.Mir Mukarram Ali, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr.Dominic Fernandes, learned Standing Counsel
for Enforcement Directorate, for respondent No.2 and perused the
record.
2. The instant is the Writ Petition, which has been filed
assailing the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short
“the PMLA Act“) in PAO No.30/2025, dated 06.08.2025,
ECIR/HYZO/19/2019, decided on 23.01.2026 Vide the impugned
2
order, the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the order of
provisional attachment, dated 06.08.2025.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the
provisions of Sections 26 and 35 of the PMLA Act submits that
there are sufficient materials produced by the petitioners before
the adjudicating authority, which has not been properly
appreciated and considered in the course of passing the
confirmation order under Section 8. The possibility of the remand
is strongly made out, which power is not vested with the appellate
Tribunal and therefore, he has preferred the instant writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision
of Karnataka High court, in support of his contention, in the case
of Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate v. M/s.Devas
Multimedia Pvt Ltd., in Miscellaneous Second Appeal No.24 of
2020 decided on 25.09.2025, wherein, there is an observation
made by the learned Division Bench of Karnataka High Court
holding that in the absence of specific power of remand, the
Tribunal could not have remanded the matter to the adjudicating
authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the
3
decision of Madras High Court in the case of Dr.V.M.Ganesan v.
the Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, (Prevention of
Money Laundering Act &FEMA), Government of India,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Chennai and
connected matters 1 indicating the same principle in the course of
his argument.
5. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the
Enforcement Directorate, appearing for respondent No.2,
opposing the petition submits that the petitioners,
at the first instance, has not enclosed the judgment rendered by
this Court in WP.No.40454 of 2025, dated 08.01.2026, in respect
of the petitioners, wherein, the petitioners had challenged the
show-cause notice issued by the adjudicating authority under
Section 8 of PMLA Act. In the said petition itself, this Court had
infact emphatically held that since statutory remedy available with
the petitioners, the petitioners should avail the same, rather than,
invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Learned Standing counsel for the
1
2014 SCC OnLine Mad 10702
4
Department has also referred to the recent decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Crl.A.No.4183-4184/2025,
dated 07.10.2025, in the case of JSW Steel Limited ETC., v.
Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, wherein also, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the PMLA provides a
comprehensive and self contained adjudicating mechanism, the
appellants are required to undertake the said mechanism before
approaching the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In addition, the judgment of Kerala High Court in Saidalvi Alias
Bava v. Union of India, rep.by Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
North Block New Delhi and others 2 was relied upon to further
strengthen his argument on the aspect of there being adjudicating
mechanisms available to the petitioners in the present writ
petition. From the perusal of provisions of law that which is
reflected under Section 35 of the PMLA Act which lays down the
procedure and powers of the Appellate Tribunal, which for ready
reference reproduced hereunder:
2
WP (Crl) No.1189 of 20205,dated 17.09.2025
5Section 35: Procedure and powers of Appellate Tribunal:
(1) The Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid
down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), but shall be
guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other
provisions of this Act, the Appellate Tribunal shall have powers to
regulate its own procedure.
(2) The Appellate Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of
discharging its functions under this Act, the same powers as are
vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
1908) while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters,
namely:–
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and
examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) subject to the provisions of sections 123 and 124 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, (1 of 1872), requisitioning any public record or
document or copy of such record or document from any office;
(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or
documents;
(f) reviewing its decisions;
(g) dismissing a representation for default or deciding it ex parte;
(h) setting aside any order of dismissal of any representation for default
or any order passed by it ex parte; and
(i) any other matter, which may be, prescribed by the Central
Government.
(3) An order made by the Appellate Tribunal under this Act shall be
executable by the Appellate Tribunal as a decree of civil court and,
for this purpose, the Appellate Tribunal shall have all the powers of a
civil court.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), the
Appellate Tribunal may transmit any order made by it to a civil court
having local jurisdiction and such civil court shall execute the order
as if it were a decree made by that court.
(5) All proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to
be judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193 and 228
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) and the Appellate
Tribunal shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of
sections 345 and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974).
6
6. A perusal of the aforesaid provision would by itself
establishes that the framers of law had taken this aspect into
consideration and given wide powers on the appellate authority to
decide own orders under challenge before the Tribunal under
Section 26 of PMLA Act. Only because, there is no reference of
the power of remand under the statute that itself would not be a
strong ground for reaching to the conclusion that the appellate
Tribunal does not have sufficient powers to adjudicate upon the
authority to test the veracity of the order passed by the
adjudicating authority, particularly, in the teeth of powers that are
vested and enumerated under Section sub-Section (2) of Section
35 of PMLA Act.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion
that the writ petition in the given factual matrix, at this juncture,
would not be maintainable on the ground of there being an
alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioners.
8. Reserving right of the petitioners to avail the remedy,
in accordance with law, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
7
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
10.07.2026
Nvl
