The HC dismissed the petition challenging attachment orders under the PMLA. The court held it possessed territorial jurisdiction at Lucknow since searches/seizures at the petitioners' Lucknow offices gave rise to a part of the cause of action and appeals under Section 42 PMLA (and thus petitions under Section 482 CrPC) lie at that forum. The HC further held the BUDS Act is non-derogatory to other penal statutes, so commission of a BUDS offence does not preclude IPC prosecution. On facts, the court found repayments were funded by new deposits and petitioners continued to solicit deposits despite a prior embargo, so continuation of PMLA proceedings involved no illegality. Petition dismissed.
The HC dismissed the petition challenging attachment orders under the PMLA. The court held it possessed territorial jurisdiction at Lucknow since searches/seizures at the petitioners' Lucknow offices gave rise to a part of the cause of action and appeals under Section 42 PMLA (and thus petitions under Section 482 CrPC) lie at that forum. The HC further held the BUDS Act is non-derogatory to other penal statutes, so commission of a BUDS offence does not preclude IPC prosecution. On facts, the court found repayments were funded by new deposits and petitioners continued to solicit deposits despite a prior embargo, so continuation of PMLA proceedings involved no illegality. Petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
