https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361187 The article explains that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked where the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act provides an efficacious statutory appeal against orders of the Adjudicating Authority and the Director, including matters relating to attachment and possession of property. It also notes that challenges to initiation of proceedings, provisional attachment, confirmation of attachment, and summons were not accepted where notice had been issued and the parties had already been heard. The inclusion of the predicate offence in the PMLA schedule by later amendment did not, on these facts, invalidate the proceedings, and the summons challenge was treated as premature. en-us Wed, 16 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 May 2018 15:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361187 The article explains that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked where the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act provides an efficacious statutory appeal against orders of the Adjudicating Authority and the Director, including matters relating to attachment and possession of property. It also notes that challenges to initiation of proceedings, provisional attachment, confirmation of attachment, and summons were not accepted where notice had been issued and the parties had already been heard. The inclusion of the predicate offence in the PMLA schedule by later amendment did not, on these facts, invalidate the proceedings, and the summons challenge was treated as premature. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 16 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361187