<?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>2017 (8) TMI 135 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346077</link>
    <description>The court quashed the Provisional Attachment Order and the Original Complaint, stating that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot be applied retrospectively. The inclusion of Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act in scheduled offences list could not have retrospective effect. The petitions were granted as prayed for, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2017 07:00:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=484366" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 135 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346077</link>
      <description>The court quashed the Provisional Attachment Order and the Original Complaint, stating that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot be applied retrospectively. The inclusion of Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act in scheduled offences list could not have retrospective effect. The petitions were granted as prayed for, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346077</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>