Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The AT upheld the provisional attachment order under the PMLA against the appellant company and its properties, treating it as a shell entity used for diversion of bank funds constituting proceeds of crime. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the attached property was immune from attachment because it had been acquired prior to the alleged bank fraud, holding that "value of such property" is attachable to prevent frustration of the statute's object. The AT emphasized that under Section 8(1) the burden lies on the noticee to establish legitimate sources for acquisition of the attached assets, which the appellant failed to discharge. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the attachment confirmed.
The AT upheld the provisional attachment order under the PMLA against the appellant company and its properties, treating it as a shell entity used for diversion of bank funds constituting proceeds of crime. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the attached property was immune from attachment because it had been acquired prior to the alleged bank fraud, holding that "value of such property" is attachable to prevent frustration of the statute's object. The AT emphasized that under Section 8(1) the burden lies on the noticee to establish legitimate sources for acquisition of the attached assets, which the appellant failed to discharge. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the attachment confirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.