PMLA - SC Orders / Highlights - Case Laws

Loading...

⚠ ✕

❮ Top

☎ Help

Keyword Search :

AI Tools : New

Ask tax questions in natural language. Powered by AI trained on the TaxTMI legal database. Use AI Tools ➞

Call Us / Help / Feedback✕

Make Most of Text Search ✕

╳

Add to...

You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!

✕

Create New Category

Title :

Description :

❯

❯❯

0 / 200

Expand Note

Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

+

Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

NOTE:

Case Laws

All › PMLA › PMLA - SCH

Showing Results for :

Reset Filters

Results Found:

Page of 18

Press 'Enter' after typing page number.

281 to 300 of 342 Results

Show AI Text Quick Glance by AI Headnote

2022 (11) TMI 1450 - SC Order Money Laundering

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Petitioner Granted Interim Bail by SC, Effective Until Indore Trial Completion; Applications Resolved.
The SC granted the petitioner bail for four weeks, subject to trial court conditions. The interim bail order was extended until the next hearing, remaining effective until the disposal of Sessions trial Nos. 661/2022 and 162/2022 in Indore, MP. The SC disposed of the SLPs and resolved pending applications.

2022 (11) TMI 1369 - SC Order Money Laundering

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Supreme Court grants exemption in Civil Appeal No. 8588/2019, tagged for Larger Bench hearing.
The Supreme Court of India granted applications for exemption from filing copies of the impugned judgment and official translation. The case will be tagged with Civil Appeal No. 8588/2019 pending before a Larger Bench of seven Judges following a Reference order in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited And Ors.

Exemption from filing certified copy - exemption from filing official translation - tagging of matter with pending Larger Bench referenceExemption from filing certified copy - exemption from filing official translation - Applications for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment and its official translation - HELD THAT: - The Court considered the applications for exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned judgment and the official translation. Having heard parties and noting the submissions, the Court allowed the applications for exemption as a preliminary procedural relief enabling the petition to proceed without the immediate production of those documents.Applications for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment and official translation are allowed.Tagging of matter with pending Larger Bench reference - Tagging of the present matter with Civil Appeal No. 8588/2019 pending before a seven-Judge Bench in view of the Reference order in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited And Ors. - HELD THAT: - Counsel for the parties, having placed their respective stands and given the subject matter of the proceedings, submitted that the instant petition raises questions which are covered by a Reference that is pending consideration before a Larger Bench of seven Judges. In view of the Reference order reported as Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited And Ors. (2020) 6 SCC 1, the Court directed administrative tagging so that the present matter may be placed for consideration along with Civil Appeal No. 8588/2019 before the Larger Bench.Matter is liable to be tagged with Civil Appeal No. 8588/2019 and is ordered to be so tagged for consideration by the Larger Bench.Final Conclusion: Exemptions from filing the certified copy and official translation are granted; the petition is administratively directed to be tagged with Civil Appeal No. 8588/2019 for consideration by the seven-Judge Larger Bench in light of the Rojer Mathew reference.

2022 (11) TMI 1150 - SC Order Money Laundering

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Supreme Court grants bail in money laundering and customs case with gold jewelry diversion.
The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant accused of offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the Customs Act, 1962, involving the diversion of gold jewelry. Despite being in custody, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail due to pending investigations and trial readiness. Specific conditions were imposed. The Court also upheld the bail granted to the appellant's son, noting the lack of specific allegations against him beyond assisting his father. The Court dismissed the challenge to the son's bail, emphasizing that its observations should not impact the case's merits.

Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - regular bail in related customs proceedings - custody pending investigation - conditions of bail - affidavit disclosing passport details - periodic presence before investigating agency - prohibition on hampering investigation or influencing witnessesBail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - custody pending investigation - conditions of bail - affidavit disclosing passport details - periodic presence before investigating agency - prohibition on hampering investigation or influencing witnesses - Grant of bail to the appellant-Sanjay Agarwal in the PMLA proceedings arising out of alleged customs offences. - HELD THAT: - The Court, noting that the appellant had earlier been admitted to regular bail in the Customs Act proceedings and had undergone custody for about a year while investigation under the PMLA remained pending and the matter was not ripe for trial on merits, held that bail was warranted in the peculiar facts of the case. The Court exercised its discretion to grant bail despite the seriousness of the allegations because of the period of custody already undergone and the ongoing nature of the investigation. The release was made subject to specific conditions designed to secure presence and prevent interference with the investigation: production before the trial Court for release on bail, furnishing an affidavit detailing passport(s) to the Enforcement Directorate, weekly attendance at the Enforcement Directorate office (every Monday between 11.00 am and 1.00 pm), and a prohibition on hampering the investigation or influencing witnesses. The Court further observed that any attempt to contravene these conditions would invite cancellation of the bail granted.Appeal allowed; appellant to be released on bail subject to stated conditions including passport affidavit, weekly attendance before the Enforcement Directorate, and non-interference with the investigation.Regular bail in related customs proceedings - custody pending investigation - Challenge to the High Court's earlier grant of bail to Preet Kumar Agarwal was dismissed. - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that the High Court had granted bail to Preet Kumar Agarwal on 05.05.2021 and that, other than a general assertion of assistance to his father, no specific acts were attributed to him. Having considered the circumstances and the passage of time since release, the Court found no ground to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion and dismissed the Special Leave Petition.Special Leave Petition dismissed; no interference with the High Court's bail order for Preet Kumar Agarwal.Final Conclusion: The appeal in respect of Sanjay Agarwal is allowed and bail is granted subject to specified conditions; the Special Leave Petition challenging bail to Preet Kumar Agarwal is dismissed. The observations made are confined to the grant of interim relief and do not prejudice the merits of the cases.

2022 (10) TMI 1082 - SC Order Money Laundering

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Supreme Court dismisses petition, imposes costs on Department, allocates funds to legal services
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition due to the respondent's health condition and bail. Exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- were imposed on the Department for filing an unnecessary petition, with the officer responsible directed to pay. Rs.50,000/- each was allocated to the National Legal Services Authority and the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee. Pending applications were disposed of, providing a conclusive resolution to all matters before the Court.

Interference with grant of bail - exercise of supervisory jurisdiction in Special Leave Petition - exemplary costs for filing frivolous or misconceived litigation - recovery of costs from the salary of a public officer - distribution of court-awarded costs to National Legal Services Authority and Mediation and Conciliation Project CommitteeInterference with grant of bail - exercise of supervisory jurisdiction in Special Leave Petition - Whether the Special Leave Petition should be entertained to interfere with the bail granted to the respondent who is suffering from malignancy and cancer. - HELD THAT: - The Court, having regard to the peculiar facts and the respondent's serious medical condition and the fact that he had already been released on bail, declined to interfere with the bail order by entertaining the Special Leave Petition. The Court treated the respondent's illness and his release on bail as determinative in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under the Special Leave Petition and therefore dismissed the petition.Special Leave Petition dismissed; no interference with the bail granted to the respondent.Exemplary costs for filing frivolous or misconceived litigation - recovery of costs from the salary of a public officer - distribution of court-awarded costs to National Legal Services Authority and Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee - Whether exemplary costs should be imposed on the Department/officer for filing the Special Leave Petition and the manner of recovery and distribution of such costs. - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the Department ought not to have filed the Special Leave Petition, thereby wasting court time and resources. The petition was dismissed with exemplary costs fixed at Rs.1,00,000/-, to be borne by the concerned officer who granted permission to file the petition. The costs were ordered to be recovered from that officer's salary and deposited by the Department in the Registry within four weeks. On deposit, the Court directed that Rs.50,000/- be transferred to the National Legal Services Authority, New Delhi, and Rs.50,000/- to the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee, Supreme Court of India.Exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed on the concerned officer; to be recovered from salary, deposited within four weeks, and split equally between the National Legal Services Authority and the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee.Final Conclusion: The Special Leave Petition was dismissed; the bail granted to the respondent was not interfered with in view of his serious illness and release on bail. The Department was ordered to pay exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/-, recoverable from the salary of the officer who authorised filing the petition, with the amount to be deposited in the Court Registry and divided equally between the National Legal Services Authority and the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee.

2022 (9) TMI 1704 - SC Order Money Laundering

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Transfer of PMLA prosecution to the connected corruption trial court, with the legal issue left open.
Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were directed to be transferred to the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam, because the connected prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act was already pending there and the Additional Solicitor General stated that the same court was competent to try both matters. The Supreme Court recorded that submission, ordered transfer, and clarified that it had not examined or decided the merits of the underlying legal issue, which was left open.

2022 (9) TMI 1433 - SC Order Money Laundering

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Supreme Court India Disposes Petition, Leaves Legal Questions Open
The Supreme Court of India disposed of the petition without interfering with the High Court of Bombay at Mumbai's order. Any raised legal questions were left open, and the petitioner can pursue other available rights or remedies. Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

2022 (9) TMI 1592 - SC Order Money Laundering

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Court Allows Rs. 3 Crore Deposit to Substitute Property Attachment Amid Appellate Authority Unavailability.
The HC addressed a challenge to the attachment of properties valued at Rs. 72 crores. Petitioners contested the attachment due to the unavailability of the Appellate Authority and offered to deposit Rs. 3 crores in a fixed deposit with the ED. The court ordered the attachment to be substituted by the fixed deposit, preserving parties' rights before the Appellate Authority. The SLP and pending applications were disposed of, directing the Appellate Authority to proceed independently and lawfully.

Provisional attachment - interim release on deposit / substitution of security - proportionality of attachment to amount of alleged claim - appellate authority to decide proceedings on meritsProvisional attachment - interim release on deposit / substitution of security - proportionality of attachment to amount of alleged claim - Interim lifting of attachment of specified properties upon deposit of amount equal to the alleged claim. - HELD THAT: - The Court recorded that two properties having an aggregate value substantially exceeding the amount alleged to be due were under attachment. In view of the availability of an alternative and adequate security in the form of a fixed deposit equal to the claimed amount, the petitioners offered to deposit Rs. 3,00,00,000/- in a nationalised bank with lien in favour of the Enforcement Directorate and to furnish a copy to the E.D. The Court accepted that substitution of the attachment by a bank fixed deposit representing the amount of the claim would be an appropriate interim arrangement and directed that upon production of the fixed deposit (with no other lien except that of the Enforcement Directorate) the attachment ordered earlier in respect of the listed properties shall be lifted as an interim measure. The order preserves the rights and contentions of the parties in the pending proceedings before the Appellate Authority.On production of the specified fixed deposit of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- with lien in favour of the Enforcement Directorate and filing of the deposit copy with the E.D., the provisional attachment of the listed properties is lifted and substituted by the fixed deposit as an interim measure.Appellate authority to decide proceedings on merits - Requirement that the Appellate Authority shall adjudicate the challenge to attachment independently on its merits. - HELD THAT: - The Court noted that the petitioners had approached the High Court because the Appellate Authority was then not available, and that the Appellate Authority is now available. The Court made clear that the interim arrangement substituting attachment with a bank deposit is without prejudice to the parties' rights and contentions. It directed that the Appellate Authority shall deal with and consider the proceedings before it absolutely in accordance with law and on its own merits and without being influenced by the present interim arrangement.Proceedings before the Appellate Authority to be considered afresh on merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by this interim order.Final Conclusion: The Special Leave Petition is disposed of by directing interim lifting of attachment of the specified properties on production of a bank fixed deposit of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- in favour of the Enforcement Directorate; the Appellate Authority is to decide the challenge on merits without being influenced by this interim arrangement.

2022 (9) TMI 1271 - SC Order Money Laundering

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

PMLA transfer petition disposed of in line with the Supreme Court's earlier judgment in the connected criminal matter.
The transfer petition in a PMLA matter was disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's judgment dated 27.07.2022 in the connected criminal special leave petition. No separate substantive direction was recorded in this order.

2022 (9) TMI 1419 - SC Order Money Laundering

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Anticipatory bail confirmed with a continuing duty to cooperate in investigation, as the Court declined to examine merits.
Anticipatory bail was confirmed and made absolute, with the appellants required to continue cooperating in the investigation. The dispute concerned alleged breaches of licence terms in the disposal of no profit no loss plots, but the Court treated the matter as primarily documentary and declined to enter into the merits. It also noted the concession that no financial loss had been caused to the State Government. The criminal appeals were disposed of with the protection of anticipatory bail continuing subject to the cooperation condition.

2022 (8) TMI 1347 - SC Order Money Laundering

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

PMLA Special Leave Petition withdrawn after Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition as withdrawn after the petitioners sought withdrawal in view of the judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary. Liberty was granted to the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law. The order records no adjudication on the merits of the PMLA issues raised in the petition.

2022 (8) TMI 1256 - SC Order Money Laundering

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Money-laundering prosecution cannot survive after final acquittal or quashing of the scheduled offence.
Prosecution for money-laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 depends on the existence of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, or at least a pending investigation or trial in that offence. Once the person concerned has been finally discharged, acquitted, or the scheduled criminal case has been quashed, the foundation for alleging proceeds of crime and continuing money-laundering proceedings against that person disappears. On the stated facts, the accused had already been acquitted in the scheduled offence and the appellants were not themselves accused of any scheduled offence, so proceedings under the Act could not be sustained and the discharge order was upheld.

Offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 - Dependency of money laundering offence on commission of a scheduled offence - Proceeds of crime - Effect of acquittal of scheduled offence on prosecution under the PMLA - Discharge under Section 277, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 - Dependency of money laundering offence on commission of a scheduled offence - Effect of acquittal of scheduled offence on prosecution under the PMLA - Discharge under Section 277, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Whether discharge of the appellants under the PMLA was correctly granted where the person allegedly responsible for the scheduled offence had already been acquitted of that scheduled offence, and whether the High Court was justified in setting aside that discharge. - HELD THAT: - The Court applied the principle that an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is parasitic upon illegal gain arising from a scheduled offence and cannot be proceeded with on a notional basis unless the scheduled offence is registered and not finally disposed against the person through conviction; conversely, where the person through whom proceeds are alleged to be linked to a scheduled offence has been finally discharged or acquitted of that scheduled offence, there can be no offence under the PMLA in respect of property claimed to be connected through him. The three Judge decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (para. 187(d) of that decision, as quoted) was treated as authoritative and was not disputed by the respondent. Applying that principle, the Trial Court's view that occurrence and link of a scheduled offence was a basic pre condition for attracting Section 3 of the PMLA was held to be justified. The High Court's order setting aside the Trial Court's discharge was therefore inconsistent with the settled legal position and with the fact that the accused (through whom the alleged proceeds were traced) had already been acquitted of the scheduled offence, while the appellants were not accused of that scheduled offence.The Trial Court's order discharging the appellants is restored and the High Court's order setting aside that discharge is set aside.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the discharge of the appellants by the Trial Court is restored and the High Court's revision order is set aside. All pending applications stand disposed of.

2022 (8) TMI 1514 - SC Order Money Laundering

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

SC Upholds HC Decision, Waives Rs.1,00,000 Cost on Petitioner; Dismisses Appeals and Pending Applications.
The SC dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the HC's decision, and declined to intervene in the impugned judgment. However, the SC waived the Rs.1,00,000/- cost imposed by the HC on the petitioner. All pending applications associated with the case were also disposed of by the SC.

2022 (5) TMI 1630 - SC Order Money Laundering

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Indian Supreme Court Allows Petitioner to Refile After Dismissing Special Leave Petition with Liberty to Approach Anew.
The SC of India dismissed the special leave petition filed by the petitioner, granting them the liberty to approach the court afresh. The petition was withdrawn at the petitioner's request, and the court disposed of any pending applications related to the case.

2022 (5) TMI 1688 - SC Order Money Laundering

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Petition withdrawn and dismissed; petitioner declared proclaimed offender after Section 50 PMLA call, may reapply in six months
The SC permitted withdrawal of the SLP and dismissed it as withdrawn, while granting the petitioner liberty to approach the HC after six months as prayed. The petitioner, though not an accused in the seven FIRs, had been called under Section 50 PMLA and was declared a proclaimed offender; the HC found he violated bail conditions and absented himself, creating a justified apprehension he might again frustrate the trial or breach conditions. The SLP dismissal preserves the HC liberty timeline.

2022 (5) TMI 1697 - SC Order (LB) Money Laundering

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Bail conditions modified to require weekly physical appearance before the Investigating Officer, while the special leave petition was dismissed.
Permission to file the special leave petition was granted, but the Court dismissed the petition on merits. The earlier direction requiring marking presence through video conferencing was modified, and the accused was directed to appear physically once a week before the Investigating Officer instead. The operative effect was substitution of the virtual attendance condition with a weekly physical appearance requirement while declining further relief in the petition.

2022 (4) TMI 1536 - SC Order Money Laundering

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Supreme Court grants Special Leave Petitions, confirms bail on medical grounds. Petitioner can pursue rights and remedies.
The Supreme Court of India granted permission to file Special Leave Petitions. The High Court confirmed bail on medical grounds on April 8, 2022. The Special Leave Petitions were disposed of, allowing the petitioner to pursue rights and remedies related to the bail order.

2022 (2) TMI 1244 - SC Order Money Laundering

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Supreme Court dismisses Special Leave Petitions, expedites trial by prosecution.
Supreme Court of India dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, directing the trial to be expedited by the prosecution/Investigating Agency, and disposed of pending applications.

2022 (3) TMI 497 - SC Order Money Laundering

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Issues:
1. Challenge to the High Court's order remanding the matter under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Impact of quashing provisional attachment order on adjudication proceedings.
3. Authority to pass provisional attachment order under Section 5(1) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the High Court's decision remanding the matter under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, to pass a fresh order under Section 5(1). The petitioner argued that the provisional attachment order lacked proper reasons and only reproduced provisions of the Act. However, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court's decision did not nullify the adjudication proceedings triggered by the provisional attachment order. The adjudication must continue until its logical end by the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with the law.

2. The Court clarified that the satisfaction required under Section 5 of the Act is twofold: first, that the property was acquired through proceeds of crime and involved in money laundering, and second, that the owner/occupant is likely to conceal, transfer, or deal with the property. The provisional attachment order is an interim arrangement during adjudication proceedings. Even if the provisional attachment order is set aside, the adjudication process must proceed independently on its merits as per the law.

3. The Court emphasized that the power to provisionally attach tainted property lies with the authorized officer upon being satisfied with the circumstances under Section 5(1) of the Act. The adjudication under Section 8 leads to the confiscation or release of the tainted property. The petitioner's success in quashing the provisional attachment order does not impact the ongoing adjudication process. Therefore, the Court upheld the High Court's decision to remand the matter for a fresh order, as the original order lacked proper satisfaction as required under Section 5(1) of the Act.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, stating that the rejection does not prevent the petitioner from seeking other appropriate remedies. The Court clarified that its decision does not reflect on the merits to be decided by the adjudicating or appropriate authority. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

Supreme Court upholds PMLA provisional attachment power, emphasizes independent adjudication process.
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition challenging the High Court's decision to remand the matter under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, for a fresh order under Section 5(1). The Court held that quashing the provisional attachment order does not affect the ongoing adjudication process, which must proceed independently. The power to provisionally attach tainted property lies with the authorized officer under Section 5(1), and the adjudication process continues until completion. The Court's decision does not prejudice the petitioner from seeking other remedies, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

Provisional attachment under Section 5(1) of the PMLA - satisfaction recorded by the authorised officer - adjudication proceedings under Section 8 of the PMLA - interim attachment to secure tainted property pending adjudication - quashing of provisional attachment for failure to record reasons Provisional attachment under Section 5(1) of the PMLA - adjudication proceedings under Section 8 of the PMLA - interim attachment to secure tainted property pending adjudication - Effect of quashing the provisional attachment order on the continuance of adjudication proceedings. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that quashing of a provisional attachment order under Section 5(1) on the ground that it did not record proper satisfaction does not automatically nullify or terminate adjudication proceedings initiated under the Act. The Court distinguished the function of the authorised officer in passing a provisional attachment-which requires satisfaction on two aspects, namely that the property is proceeds of crime and that the person in possession is likely to conceal or transfer it for interim safeguarding-from the separate adjudicatory process under Section 8 which may culminate in confiscation or release. There is no provision in the statute cited that prevents the authorised officer from passing a provisional attachment after a complaint has been filed before the Adjudicating Authority; the power to attach provisionally remains exercisable upon satisfaction of the statutory conditions. Accordingly, success in a challenge to the sufficiency of reasons in a provisional attachment order does not per se halt or dispose of the pending adjudication, which must proceed on its merits in accordance with law. Quashing of the provisional attachment does not preclude continuation of adjudication proceedings; adjudication must proceed on its own merits. Satisfaction recorded by the authorised officer - quashing of provisional attachment for failure to record reasons - Validity of the High Court's direction to remit the matter to the appropriate authority to pass a fresh order after finding the original order merely reproduced statutory provisions. - HELD THAT: - The Court found the High Court's course of remanding the matter to the appropriate authority to record fresh reasons was unexceptionable where the provisional attachment order was set aside on the limited ground that it failed to disclose a proper, tangible satisfaction and merely reproduced statutory language. The remand was limited to enabling the authorised officer to consider whether, upon proper recording of satisfaction as required by Section 5(1), a fresh provisional attachment should be made. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with that remand, while clarifying that such remand and any fresh provisional attachment would not prevent the petitioner from availing other remedies or from challenging any fresh order. High Court's direction to remit the matter for passing a fresh provisional attachment order (if so advised) is upheld; remand is permissible where original order lacked recorded satisfaction. Final Conclusion: Special leave petition dismissed; High Court's remand to the appropriate authority to pass a fresh provisional attachment order, if justified after recording proper satisfaction, is sustained, and adjudication proceedings may continue; petitioner remains free to challenge any fresh order by appropriate remedy.

2022 (3) TMI 582 - SC Order Money Laundering

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Supreme Court denies extension of bail due to health issues, upholds previous order
The Supreme Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai, declined to grant the extension of interim/temporary bail sought by the applicant due to severe health issues. The Court noted the previous order prohibiting further extensions and found no merit in allowing the request, ultimately dismissing the Miscellaneous Application and disposing of any pending applications accordingly.

2022 (1) TMI 1303 - SC Order Money Laundering

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Supreme Court dismisses special leave petition, sets trial conclusion goal for 2022
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition after hearing both parties. The Investigating Agency assured prompt completion of the investigation, aiming for trial conclusion by the end of 2022. The petitioner can renew the bail prayer after six months if the trial does not progress. The Court directed the Agency to ensure witness availability for trial proceedings. Pending applications were disposed of based on these decisions and assurances.

Interference under special leave jurisdiction - dismissal of special leave petition - direction for expeditious investigation and trial - renewal of bail application - obligation to ensure availability of witnessesInterference under special leave jurisdiction - dismissal of special leave petition - Petition under special leave to appeal seeking interference with the ongoing investigation/trial. - HELD THAT: - The Court considered the petitioner's challenge to the ongoing proceedings and concluded that interference under its special leave jurisdiction was not warranted. No error of law or jurisdictional infirmity was found that justified judicial intervention in the matters challenged in the petition. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant relief in this petition.Special leave petition dismissed and no interference granted.Direction for expeditious investigation and trial - obligation to ensure availability of witnesses - renewal of bail application - Court's ancillary directions concerning completion of investigation/trial, availability of witnesses, and the petitioner's right to seek renewal of bail if trial does not proceed within the specified period. - HELD THAT: - Although the petition was dismissed on merits, the Court recorded an assurance from the Investigating Agency that investigation would be completed expeditiously and that all efforts would be made to ensure conclusion of trial by the end of 2022. The Court directed that, upon commencement of trial, the Investigating Agency must ensure that witnesses are produced for examination on the dates fixed by the trial court. The Court also provided that if the trial does not proceed within the ensuing six months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail after June 2022. These directions are procedural and protective in nature, aimed at ensuring expedition and the petitioner's access to judicial remedies if delay persists.Assurance recorded; directions issued for expeditious completion of investigation and trial and for ensuring witness availability; liberty granted to renew bail application after June 2022 if trial does not proceed within six months.Final Conclusion: The special leave petition is dismissed; the Court recorded assurances and issued directions for expeditious completion of investigation and trial and for ensuring witness availability, and granted liberty to the petitioner to renew the bail application after June 2022 if the trial does not proceed within six months.

Page of 18

Press 'Enter' after typing page number.

281 to 300 of 342 Results

Case Laws

All › PMLA › PMLA - SCH

All Case Laws

Showing Results for :

Reset Filters

Page of 18

Press 'Enter' after typing page number.

281 to 300 of 342 Results

No Records Found

Case Laws

All Case Laws

Showing Results for : Reset Filters

Topics

Acts Income Tax

➔Previous Next ➔