https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366179 The court found that the Directorate of Enforcement did not violate the law in the arrest of the petitioner's husband as he had endorsed the arrest memo indicating awareness of the grounds. However, due to conflicting views on the requirement to communicate grounds of arrest in writing, the matter was referred to a larger bench. The Supreme Court transferred the case for further review, aligning with existing legal precedent. The court declined to rule on the arrest's legality but renumbered the petition as a Criminal Revision Petition to address the challenge to the custody extension order. en-us Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Aug 2018 18:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366179 The court found that the Directorate of Enforcement did not violate the law in the arrest of the petitioner's husband as he had endorsed the arrest memo indicating awareness of the grounds. However, due to conflicting views on the requirement to communicate grounds of arrest in writing, the matter was referred to a larger bench. The Supreme Court transferred the case for further review, aligning with existing legal precedent. The court declined to rule on the arrest's legality but renumbered the petition as a Criminal Revision Petition to address the challenge to the custody extension order. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366179