Delayed judgment pronouncement alone does not invalidate Tribunal orders, while rectification cannot reopen evidence or negate confiscation-related pe...
Agricultural-land reinvestment qualifies when transfer consideration precedes replacement purchase, while unexamined claims may be reassessed on escap...
Bona fide public fixed-deposit explanations prevent concealment penalties where unexplained-credit additions lack independent evidence of undisclosed ...
Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA establishes a committal process for moving a scheduled-offence proceeding to the Special Court dealing with the associated money-laundering complaint when cognizance has been taken by different courts. An authorised PMLA authority cannot exercise its discretion in a manner that defeats this statutory scheme, while the court trying the scheduled offence retains responsibility for deciding the committal application. Under Article 226, a direction to initiate the committal process concerns an authority subject to writ jurisdiction rather than a judicial transfer of criminal proceedings. A sufficient territorial nexus may support such a direction even where the scheduled-offence proceeding is pending outside the State.
Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA establishes a committal process for moving a scheduled-offence proceeding to the Special Court dealing with the associated money-laundering complaint when cognizance has been taken by different courts. An authorised PMLA authority cannot exercise its discretion in a manner that defeats this statutory scheme, while the court trying the scheduled offence retains responsibility for deciding the committal application. Under Article 226, a direction to initiate the committal process concerns an authority subject to writ jurisdiction rather than a judicial transfer of criminal proceedings. A sufficient territorial nexus may support such a direction even where the scheduled-offence proceeding is pending outside the State.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.