Reopening Assessments invalid where satisfaction and jurisdictional approval are absent for third party seized material, leading to quashing of assess...
Benami property exclusion from the insolvency estate: Benami Act proceedings preclude IBC tribunals from reopening attachments or treating such assets...
Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA requires the court taking cognizance of the scheduled offence to commit that case to the PMLA Special Court, and the court has no discretion to refuse transfer on grounds of delay or an advanced stage of trial. Relying on Supreme Court authority, the High Court held that the statutory scheme mandates a common competent Special Court for the money-laundering complaint and the connected predicate offence. On the special facts, the predicate offence court was also a designated PMLA Special Court and therefore competent to try both matters, so the PMLA complaint was directed to be transferred there, while the broader jurisdictional question was left open.
Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA requires the court taking cognizance of the scheduled offence to commit that case to the PMLA Special Court, and the court has no discretion to refuse transfer on grounds of delay or an advanced stage of trial. Relying on Supreme Court authority, the High Court held that the statutory scheme mandates a common competent Special Court for the money-laundering complaint and the connected predicate offence. On the special facts, the predicate offence court was also a designated PMLA Special Court and therefore competent to try both matters, so the PMLA complaint was directed to be transferred there, while the broader jurisdictional question was left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.