https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346906 Confirmed attachment of a vehicle under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, when the property is in custodia legis, could not be enforced by taking possession without first obtaining leave of the court. The mandatory procedure under Rule 7 of the 2013 Rules required the authorised officer to move the Special Court with the provisional attachment order and the confirmation order before possession could lawfully be taken. Because the respondent bypassed that procedure and did not inform or obtain leave of the court, the possession was unauthorised and had to be restored to the appellant. en-us Fri, 19 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Aug 2017 07:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346906 Confirmed attachment of a vehicle under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, when the property is in custodia legis, could not be enforced by taking possession without first obtaining leave of the court. The mandatory procedure under Rule 7 of the 2013 Rules required the authorised officer to move the Special Court with the provisional attachment order and the confirmation order before possession could lawfully be taken. Because the respondent bypassed that procedure and did not inform or obtain leave of the court, the possession was unauthorised and had to be restored to the appellant. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 19 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346906