https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347017 The Tribunal dismissed the application for stay, allowing the respondent to take possession of the attached property. The appellant company, controlled by Dr. Vijay Mallya, was denied interim relief as Dr. Mallya's control and conduct indicated an intention to evade repayment, justifying the attachment. The Tribunal found that the distinct legal entity argument did not apply in this case due to Dr. Mallya's involvement and control over the company, emphasizing that absconding parties cannot seek discretionary relief. en-us Tue, 16 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:56:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347017 The Tribunal dismissed the application for stay, allowing the respondent to take possession of the attached property. The appellant company, controlled by Dr. Vijay Mallya, was denied interim relief as Dr. Mallya's control and conduct indicated an intention to evade repayment, justifying the attachment. The Tribunal found that the distinct legal entity argument did not apply in this case due to Dr. Mallya's involvement and control over the company, emphasizing that absconding parties cannot seek discretionary relief. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 16 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347017