<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2014 (7) TMI 1221 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188318</link>
    <description>Summons issued under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 for passport, ration card or voter identity card, bank details, transcripts and immovable property details was treated as within investigative power. Identity documents were considered relevant to verify identity and secure cooperation, while bank and property records were held to fall within the reporting and inquiry framework under Section 12. The pendency of separate IPC proceedings did not bar action under the Act because the PMLA proceedings were independent. As the summons was issued for investigation, interference at the threshold was declined and the request to quash it was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2016 16:24:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=449231" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 1221 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188318</link>
      <description>Summons issued under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 for passport, ration card or voter identity card, bank details, transcripts and immovable property details was treated as within investigative power. Identity documents were considered relevant to verify identity and secure cooperation, while bank and property records were held to fall within the reporting and inquiry framework under Section 12. The pendency of separate IPC proceedings did not bar action under the Act because the PMLA proceedings were independent. As the summons was issued for investigation, interference at the threshold was declined and the request to quash it was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188318</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>