<?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>2018 (10) TMI 330 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368364</link>
    <description>The Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging provisional attachment orders under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It held that the petitioners must exhaust alternative remedies under the Act, emphasizing the administrative nature of proceedings at the initial stage and the need for authorities to investigate freely. The petitioners were directed to participate in the adjudication process before the Competent Authorities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2018 07:28:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=537360" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 330 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368364</link>
      <description>The Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging provisional attachment orders under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It held that the petitioners must exhaust alternative remedies under the Act, emphasizing the administrative nature of proceedings at the initial stage and the need for authorities to investigate freely. The petitioners were directed to participate in the adjudication process before the Competent Authorities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368364</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>