TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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.
The petitioners sought to quash Provisional Attachment Order No. 02/2019 dated 23.09.2019 issued u/s 5(1) of the PMLA by respondent no. 3, which attached land admeasuring 26.76 hectares situated in Satna, M.P., valued at Rs. 4,68,60,710/-. The petitioners argued that the proceedings were a gross misuse and abuse of PMLA provisions, alleging the charges were false and unsubstantiated. The respondent no. 3 filed Original Complaint OC 1208/2019 dated 14.10.2019 u/s 5(5) of PMLA and issued a Notice to Show Cause dated 22.10.2019 u/s 8(1) of PMLA. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the attachment u/s 8(3) of PMLA on 02.03.2020. The petitioners' appeal against this confirmation is pending before the Appellate Tribunal.
Issue 2: Quashing of Original Complaint No. 1208/2019The Original Complaint No. 1208/2019 was filed by respondent no. 3 u/s 5(5) of PMLA. The petitioners contended that the complaint and subsequent proceedings were based on false allegations and should be quashed. The Adjudicating Authority issued a notice to show cause u/s 8(1) of PMLA, and the provisional attachment was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority.
Issue 3: Quashing of Notice to Show Cause dated 22.10.2019The Notice to Show Cause dated 22.10.2019 was issued by the Adjudicating Authority u/s 8(1) of PMLA following the filing of the Original Complaint. The petitioners argued that this notice, along with the complaint and attachment order, should be quashed as they were based on unsubstantiated allegations.
Issue 4: Substitution of Attached Property with a Bank GuaranteeThe petitioners requested the substitution of the attached land with a bank guarantee of equivalent value (Rs. 4,68,60,710/-). They argued that the attachment caused significant financial losses and hindered their business operations. The court noted various precedents, including Supreme Court orders, allowing such substitutions. The court ordered the substitution of the attached land with a bank guarantee, which should be kept alive by periodical renewal until the conclusion of the trial arising out of ECIR No. 03/INSZO/2014.
Issue 5: Jurisdictional ChallengeThe respondent no. 3 argued that the application was not maintainable in Delhi due to forum non-conveniens, as the petitioner, attached property, and respondent were based in Madhya Pradesh. However, the court found that the Original Complaint was filed in Delhi, and related proceedings, including the CBI FIR and trial, were also in Delhi. Therefore, the court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
The application was allowed, and the attached land was ordered to be substituted by a bank guarantee. The court clarified that this order should not be taken as an opinion on the merits of the case.
List on 29.07.2024, the date already fixed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
