The Tripura High Court has declined to vacate its stay on ED proceedings challenged by Abhishek Chandra. The bench said compliance with Section 5(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act required detailed examination and kept the interim protection in place until the writ petition is decided.
Agartala: The Tripura High Court has dismissed an application by the Union of India and the Directorate of Enforcement seeking to recall an interim order suspending proceedings dated July 31, 2026, challenged by Abhishek Chandra. The Court directed that the stay would continue pending disposal of his writ petition.
A division bench of Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice Biswajit Palit delivered the judgment and order on November 10, 2026, in I.A. No. 02 of 2026 arising from W.P.(Crl.) No. 14 of 2026.
The decision disposes of the application to vacate the stay. The substantive challenge to the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) remains pending.
ED relied on the statutory remedies
The Union and ED sought recall of the High Court’s September 16, 2026 order in I.A. No. 01 of 2026. Appearing for them, Deputy Solicitor General B. Majumder argued that Chandra should first pursue the remedy before the Adjudicating Authority, followed by an appeal to the Tribunal under Section 26 and a further appeal to the High Court under Section 42 of the PMLA.
The applicants also pointed to the 180-day duration of provisional attachment, submitting that the period had begun on July 31, 2026 and would conclude in a few months. These were arguments advanced in support of vacating the stay.
Chandra questioned compliance with Section 5
Opposing the application, Chandra’s counsel argued that the availability of an alternative remedy did not absolutely bar a petition under Article 226. Counsel relied on Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1, and alleged that the Deputy Director had failed to comply with the statutory requirements.
Counsel further submitted that Chandra was not named in any of the five FIRs relied upon and that they contained no allegations against him. The order records these as Chandra’s submissions; it does not finally determine those factual assertions.
Both sides referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India. The competing arguments concerned the statutory attachment procedure, available remedies and safeguards governing the exercise of power.
Compliance issue left for detailed examination
In paragraph 9, the High Court said that the impugned order needed to be tested for compliance with Section 5(5) of the PMLA. That provision, reproduced in the decision, requires the officer provisionally attaching property to file a complaint stating the facts of the attachment before the Adjudicating Authority within 30 days.
The bench noted that the applicants’ arguments had been confined to the request to vacate the stay, although a counter-affidavit had been filed in the main case. It therefore decided that application without adjudicating the writ petition in its entirety.
In paragraph 12, the Court held that the grievances required detailed examination and that the balance of convenience favoured the writ petitioner. It continued the September 16 interim order until disposal of the writ petition and dismissed the vacate-stay application.
Main petition remains pending
The order preserves the existing interim protection while leaving all issues for final consideration. It does not quash the July 31 proceedings or finally hold that the ED failed to comply with Section 5(5).
Under paragraph 13, W.P.(Crl.) No. 14 of 2026 is to be listed as part-heard, along with W.P.(Crl.) No. 11 of 2026, for hearing on November 24, 2026.
Case Title: Union of India & Another v. Shri Abhishek Chandra
Case Number: I.A. No. 02 of 2026 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 14 of 2026
CNR: TRHC010016342026
Court: High Court of Tripura, Agartala
Bench: Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice Biswajit Palit
Date of Order: November 10, 2026
Outcome: Vacate-stay application dismissed; interim stay continued pending disposal of the writ petition.
