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.
HC allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned AT order dated 26.06.2024, holding that the Respondent's continued retention of the Appellant's property was unlawful for non-compliance with Section 20 of the PMLA. The Court affirmed that Section 20(1) imposes a substantive, mandatory requirement of a fresh, independent, written "reason to believe" by an authorised officer post-seizure under Section 17, without which there is nothing for the Adjudicating Authority to confirm under Section 8(3)(a). While rejecting the Appellant's challenge to the application of Section 8(3)(a) in light of binding SC precedent, the HC concluded the retention violated Article 300A and could not be sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.