Imported seaweed extract provisionally released on bond only; declaratory rejection set aside; appellate decision due within section 128-A(4-A) three ...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9341 to 9360 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC quashed the impugned freezing orders dated 05.09.2018 as legally unsustainable and dismissed the appeal, upholding the Appellate Tribunal's conclusion. The court found the authorised officer's Section 17(1A) orders to be cryptic and based on mere suspicion, lacking the requisite recorded "reason to believe" and failing compliance with Sub-secs. (1) and (1A) of Section 17 and Rules 3-4 (Search/Seizure or Freezing) of the PMLA Rules, 2005. The HC held that freezing, being an alternative to seizure, cannot be effected on a lesser standard than a reason to believe, and noted that the Section 17(4) application improperly relied on the FIR/investigation, rendering the orders void ab initio.
The HC quashed the impugned freezing orders dated 05.09.2018 as legally unsustainable and dismissed the appeal, upholding the Appellate Tribunal's conclusion. The court found the authorised officer's Section 17(1A) orders to be cryptic and based on mere suspicion, lacking the requisite recorded "reason to believe" and failing compliance with Sub-secs. (1) and (1A) of Section 17 and Rules 3-4 (Search/Seizure or Freezing) of the PMLA Rules, 2005. The HC held that freezing, being an alternative to seizure, cannot be effected on a lesser standard than a reason to believe, and noted that the Section 17(4) application improperly relied on the FIR/investigation, rendering the orders void ab initio.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.