TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Clarifies Petitioner's Role in PMLA Case, Extends Interim Protection for Two Weeks, Corrects Errors.</h1> <h3>Sh. Pradeep Koneru Versus Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr.</h3> Sh. Pradeep Koneru Versus Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr. - 2024:DHC:5335 - DB Issues:Recall of judgment in Writ Petition No. 384/2019Analysis:The petitioner filed applications seeking the recall of the judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 384/2019, claiming that the judgment was erroneous as it did not address the grounds raised by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that certain findings in the judgment were not supported by the pleadings of either party and caused prejudice. It was highlighted that the petitioner was only a witness in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case and was never arrested in that case. The respondent's Special Counsel acknowledged that the petitioner was a witness in the PMLA case but an accused in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case.The High Court noted that the two petitions filed by the petitioner had mixed up facts related to the PMLA and CBI cases. Typographical errors in the judgment were pointed out and rectified, clarifying that the petitioner was never arrested in the PMLA case and remained a witness. The errors regarding the petitioner's status in the CBI case were also corrected. The Court clarified that certain observations in the judgment, indicating the petitioner as an accused in the PMLA case, were factually incorrect and deleted those portions.The judgment highlighted the petitioner's right to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 50 of the PMLA, referencing a Supreme Court case that upheld the provision's validity. The relief sought by the petitioner was deemed satisfied by the Apex Court's decision, and the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge other reliefs sought in the writ petitions before the appropriate forum. The interim protection granted to the petitioner was extended for two more weeks, and the applications for recall were disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
