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
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Challenging PMLA Attachment: Legal Battle Over Property Seizure Scope and Procedural Fairness Under Scrutiny</h1> <h3>M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. & Anr & M/s. Hi-Tech Mercantile India Pvt. Ltd & Ors. Versus Directorate of Enforcement</h3> HC issued notice on petitions challenging provisional attachment orders under PMLA. Petitioners argued attachment exceeded proven proceeds of crime and ... Money Laundering - Challenge to Provisional Attachment Order as also the proceedings initiated under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- Issue notice. Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC accepts notice. They pray for, and are granted, three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder thereto be filed before the next date. List on 23.02.2022. The Delhi High Court, presided by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Rekha Palli, addressed petitions challenging Provisional Attachment Orders nos. 8337-8340/2021 dated 01.12.2021 and proceedings under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioners contended that the attachment was flawed as the respondent's own assessment limited the proceeds of crime to approximately Rs. 951 crore, whereas the petitioner incurred over Rs. 680 crore for operation and development of the coal mine and was obligated to pay Rs. 249 crore as compensation per the Supreme Court's order in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, (2014) 9 SCC 516. They further argued that certain attached properties were acquired prior to the alleged offence and thus were not liable for attachment. The Court issued notice, granted the respondents three weeks to file a counter affidavit, and scheduled further proceedings for 23.02.2022. The applications for exemption were allowed, and the interim applications disposed of.