Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A single-member Bench of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority was held valid because the Chairperson may constitute one- or two-member Benches for adjudication, and such composition is directory rather than jurisdictional; the coram non judice objection failed. The limitation challenge to retention of seized material was rejected because the COVID-19 exclusion period had to be omitted and no prejudice or miscarriage of justice was shown. For confirmation of provisional attachment, the Court applied the prima facie satisfaction standard, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, and found sufficient material indicating the properties were involved in money laundering as proceeds of crime. All three writ petitions were dismissed.
A single-member Bench of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority was held valid because the Chairperson may constitute one- or two-member Benches for adjudication, and such composition is directory rather than jurisdictional; the coram non judice objection failed. The limitation challenge to retention of seized material was rejected because the COVID-19 exclusion period had to be omitted and no prejudice or miscarriage of justice was shown. For confirmation of provisional attachment, the Court applied the prima facie satisfaction standard, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, and found sufficient material indicating the properties were involved in money laundering as proceeds of crime. All three writ petitions were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
