TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Designated Court was justified in issuing warrants of arrest against the petitioners in a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and whether the impugned order calling them through coercive process called for interference.
Analysis: The petitioners had already failed in an earlier attempt to avoid custodial process, and no change in circumstances was shown thereafter. The complaint disclosed serious allegations of money laundering, the petitioners were found to have been non-cooperative with the investigating agency, and the record indicated that they had not responded meaningfully to notices or summons. In such circumstances, the choice of coercive process for securing presence was held to be a judicial discretion to be exercised on a proper application of mind. The gravity of the offence under the statute, together with the statutory policy reflected in the mandatory bail regime, distinguished the authorities relied upon by the petitioners. The Court also held that the previous observations in other cases were fact-specific and inapplicable to the present complaint.
Conclusion: The challenge to the order issuing warrants of arrest was rejected and no interference was warranted.
TaxTMI 
