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: (i) Whether Special Leave Petitions challenging orders of attachment under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 remain maintainable where the accused have been discharged and the order of attachment is asserted to be no longer operative; (ii) Whether criminal revision petitions filed by the Directorate of Enforcement seeking to set aside orders of discharge require interim relief from this Court and whether pending Special Leave Petitions should be retained.
Issue (i): Whether SLPs challenging attachment orders remain maintainable when the attachment is contended to have ceased to operate due to discharge of the accused.
Analysis: The petitioners asserted that the order of attachment had ceased to operate following the Special Court's order of discharge of the accused; the High Court had held the writ petitions were not maintainable. The Supreme Court examined the practical effect of the asserted discharge on the utility of the SLPs and noted that if the discharge is subsequently set aside in pending proceedings, the petitioners may seek revival or otherwise challenge the attachment substantively.
Conclusion: The Special Leave Petitions challenging the order of attachment were disposed of as no longer serving a purpose in view of the petitioners' contention that the attachment is not operative; petitioners are permitted to seek revival or substantive challenge if the discharge is set aside.
Issue (ii): Whether the revision petitions filed by the Directorate of Enforcement seeking to challenge orders of discharge require interim relief and whether related SLPs should be kept pending.
Analysis: The Court noted that revision petitions were pending before the High Court, that no interim relief had been operating for several years, and that the revision petitions had been kept for hearing. Given the current procedural posture and that the High Court proceedings are ongoing, the Court found no purpose in keeping these SLPs pending.
Conclusion: The Special Leave Petitions relating to the revision matters were disposed of; all rights and contentions in the pending revision petitions are left open.
Final Conclusion: The Court disposed of the special leave petitions presently before it without finally adjudicating the substantive disputes on the merits; petitioners are allowed to apply for revival or to pursue substantive challenges if the orders of discharge are set aside in the pending proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an interim or enforcement order under challenge has ceased to operate due to subsequent proceedings, appellate or special leave petitions may be disposed of as infructuous, with liberty to revive or seek substantive adjudication if the underlying orders are restored.
TaxTMI 
