Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
Section 20 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act does not cause a freezing order to lapse automatically after 180 days where the Adjudicating Authority has authorised retention or continuation within that period. On the facts, the retention order had been passed in time, so the challenge based on the outer-limit argument failed. The Tribunal also found prima facie material, including the appellant's own statement, showing involvement in facilitating false inspection reports, verification of bank guarantees and processing connected proposals, and noted the failure to disclose the source of the funds in the frozen accounts. The challenge to continued retention was rejected and the appeal dismissed.
Section 20 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act does not cause a freezing order to lapse automatically after 180 days where the Adjudicating Authority has authorised retention or continuation within that period. On the facts, the retention order had been passed in time, so the challenge based on the outer-limit argument failed. The Tribunal also found prima facie material, including the appellant's own statement, showing involvement in facilitating false inspection reports, verification of bank guarantees and processing connected proposals, and noted the failure to disclose the source of the funds in the frozen accounts. The challenge to continued retention was rejected and the appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
