https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367195 The appellant challenged a provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, claiming the property was tenancy property, not owned by them. They provided evidence of a tenancy agreement and rent receipts. An interim stay was granted against dispossession pending appeal, with the appellant agreeing to monthly deposits. The appeal was disposed of with the appellant having the option to seek a refund of the rental amount deposited if proceedings before the Special Court favored them. No costs were awarded in the judgment. en-us Wed, 01 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Sep 2018 07:39:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367195 The appellant challenged a provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, claiming the property was tenancy property, not owned by them. They provided evidence of a tenancy agreement and rent receipts. An interim stay was granted against dispossession pending appeal, with the appellant agreeing to monthly deposits. The appeal was disposed of with the appellant having the option to seek a refund of the rental amount deposited if proceedings before the Special Court favored them. No costs were awarded in the judgment. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 01 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367195