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>Appeal Allowed: Appellant Granted Bail Under Prevention of Money Laundering Act; Special Court to Reassess Case.</h1> <h3>ARUN PATI TRIPATHI Versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT</h3> The SC allowed the appeal concerning the appellant's arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The HC had previously set aside the cognizance ... Money Laundering - challenge to order taking cognizance - HELD THAT:- As of today, the position is that though complaint was filed on 5th October 2024, an order taking cognizance is not in existence. The respondent has acted upon order dated 7th February, 2025 by making application dated 7th February, 2025 before the Special Court, requesting the Court to take cognizance. Now, the Special Court will have to examine the case again. As there is a sanction, the issue to be considered will be whether the sanction is valid. All this will have to be examined by the Special Court. Appellant is in custody from 8th August, 2024. Order taking cognizance passed by the Special Court has been set aside by the High Court and by acting upon the order of the High Court, a fresh application has been moved by the respondent for taking cognizance. The said application is yet to be heard by the Special Court. In view of these peculiar facts, custody of the appellant cannot be continued. As there are serious allegations against the appellant, appropriate stringent terms and conditions can be imposed by the Special Court - the respondent are directed to produce the appellant before the Special Court within a period of one week from today. The appeal stands allowed. The Supreme Court granted leave in a case involving the arrest of the appellant under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The High Court set aside the order taking cognizance and allowed the respondent to proceed after obtaining a sanction. The respondent applied for cognizance based on the sanction, and the Special Court will reexamine the case. Due to the appellant's custody since August 8, 2024, and the absence of a valid cognizance order, the Court directed the respondent to produce the appellant within a week and granted bail with stringent conditions. Failure to cooperate may result in bail cancellation. The appeal was allowed, and pending applications were disposed of.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
