<?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>2016 (3) TMI 1193 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191298</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the order of the Single Judge in a writ petition challenging the confirmation of provisional attachment of properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The appellant&#039;s objections regarding jurisdiction and maintainability of the writ petition were rejected. The Court directed the appellant to consider the request for substitution of property within two weeks. The appeal was disposed of without setting a precedent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:37:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=463494" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 1193 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191298</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the order of the Single Judge in a writ petition challenging the confirmation of provisional attachment of properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The appellant&#039;s objections regarding jurisdiction and maintainability of the writ petition were rejected. The Court directed the appellant to consider the request for substitution of property within two weeks. The appeal was disposed of without setting a precedent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191298</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>