Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The High Court dismissed the application challenging the freezing orders issued by the Enforcement Directorate u/s 17 and Section 17(1-A) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The Court held that the phrase "for the purposes of investigation" in the notice u/s 17(1-A) was sufficient justification for the Enforcement Directorate's actions. The Court distinguished the present case from the decisions relied upon by the petitioner, stating that the factual circumstances were different. The Court also clarified the difference between the implementation of Section 17(1-A) and Section 17(2) of the PMLA, emphasizing the requirement of maintaining secrecy u/s 17(2). Based on the financial trail linking the petitioner company to an entity under investigation, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the freezing orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.