Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC held that the learned Special Court (PMLA) violated the proviso to Section 223 of BNSS by taking cognizance without affording the petitioner the mandatory pre-cognizance hearing, contravening principles of natural justice. The court affirmed that the statutory obligation in Section 223 applies as articulated by the Supreme Court and operates from its commencement; further, the provision governed the present complaint filed after 01.07.2024 and cognized on 08.01.2025. The impugned cognizance order dated 08.01.2025 was set aside and the matter remanded to the Special Judge (PMLA), Patna for fresh adjudication after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard under Section 223(1) BNSS within a reasonable time. Revision petition allowed by remand.
HC held that the learned Special Court (PMLA) violated the proviso to Section 223 of BNSS by taking cognizance without affording the petitioner the mandatory pre-cognizance hearing, contravening principles of natural justice. The court affirmed that the statutory obligation in Section 223 applies as articulated by the Supreme Court and operates from its commencement; further, the provision governed the present complaint filed after 01.07.2024 and cognized on 08.01.2025. The impugned cognizance order dated 08.01.2025 was set aside and the matter remanded to the Special Judge (PMLA), Patna for fresh adjudication after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard under Section 223(1) BNSS within a reasonable time. Revision petition allowed by remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
