<?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>1990 (9) TMI 353 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191657</link>
    <description>Money lying in a bank account is property within section 102 CrPC and may be subjected to seizure by a prohibitory order preventing operation of the account. Applying that principle, the Court held that the investigating agency could freeze the bank accounts because the materials suggested the funds were traceable to alleged offences, while the claim of ownership could not be decided at the investigation stage and had to await trial. The seized demand drafts were also retained as part of the investigation, and no ground was shown for their immediate release. The writ petition was therefore unsuccessful and the prohibitory order remained in force.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2017 18:39:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465572" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (9) TMI 353 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191657</link>
      <description>Money lying in a bank account is property within section 102 CrPC and may be subjected to seizure by a prohibitory order preventing operation of the account. Applying that principle, the Court held that the investigating agency could freeze the bank accounts because the materials suggested the funds were traceable to alleged offences, while the claim of ownership could not be decided at the investigation stage and had to await trial. The seized demand drafts were also retained as part of the investigation, and no ground was shown for their immediate release. The writ petition was therefore unsuccessful and the prohibitory order remained in force.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191657</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>