Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    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
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Judicial custody extended in money laundering case, PMLA investigations to continue despite closure report.</h1> <h3>Babulal Verma, Kamal Kishore Gupta Versus Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai, State of Maharashtra</h3> Babulal Verma, Kamal Kishore Gupta Versus Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai, State of Maharashtra - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of the extension of judicial custody.2. Impact of the 'C' Summary Report on the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).3. Validity of the proceedings under PMLA after the predicate/scheduled offence is compromised/compounded.4. Interpretation of Section 44 of PMLA and its implications on the ongoing investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Extension of Judicial Custody:The applicants challenged the order dated 15th February 2021, by the Special Judge, which extended their judicial custody and denied bail. The court examined the detailed remand application filed by the ED, which highlighted the serious nature of the economic offence involving money laundering of Rs. 410 Crores. The court found that the Special Judge did not err in extending the judicial custody, as the investigation required systematic and thorough analysis due to the complex nature of money laundering involving multiple stages like placement, layering, and integration.2. Impact of the 'C' Summary Report on the Proceedings under PMLA:The applicants argued that the acceptance of the 'C' Summary Report by the Judicial Magistrate in the predicate offence (FIR No.109 of 2020) should result in the termination of proceedings under PMLA. However, the court noted that the filing of a closure report in the predicate offence does not affect the ongoing investigation under PMLA. The court emphasized that the PMLA investigation is independent and can continue irrespective of the outcome of the predicate offence.3. Validity of the Proceedings under PMLA after the Predicate/Scheduled Offence is Compromised/Compounded:The applicants contended that once the predicate offence is compromised or compounded, the PMLA proceedings should cease. The court rejected this argument, stating that the PMLA investigation stands on its own and is not dependent on the predicate offence's outcome. The court referred to the legislative intent and the provisions of PMLA, which indicate that the investigation under PMLA continues independently to track and investigate money laundering offences.4. Interpretation of Section 44 of PMLA and its Implications on the Ongoing Investigation by ED:The court analyzed Section 44 of PMLA, particularly the explanation to Sub-Section (d), which clarifies that the jurisdiction of the Special Court and the ED is not dependent on any orders passed concerning the predicate offence. The court upheld that once an offence under PMLA is registered based on a scheduled offence, the investigation under PMLA continues independently. The court cited various judgments, including those from the Supreme Court and High Courts, affirming that the PMLA is a self-contained statute and the offence of money laundering is an independent offence.Conclusion:The court concluded that the ongoing investigation by the ED under PMLA is valid and independent of the outcome of the predicate offence. The extension of judicial custody was found to be proper, and the applicants' request for release from confinement or bail was denied. The applications were dismissed, and the bail application was disposed of accordingly.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found