<?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 (12) TMI 97 - ATPMLA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351828</link>
    <description>An adjudicatory authority cannot confirm or continue a provisional attachment when a High Court has already quashed the underlying attachment order. The confirmation order was passed in disregard of the subsisting judicial decision and therefore lacked legal basis. The attachment could not survive, and the impugned confirmation was set aside, with the attached property required to be returned in accordance with procedure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Dec 2017 10:09:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498395" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 97 - ATPMLA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351828</link>
      <description>An adjudicatory authority cannot confirm or continue a provisional attachment when a High Court has already quashed the underlying attachment order. The confirmation order was passed in disregard of the subsisting judicial decision and therefore lacked legal basis. The attachment could not survive, and the impugned confirmation was set aside, with the attached property required to be returned in accordance with procedure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351828</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>