https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374586 Where the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 prescribes a complete and time-bound mechanism for freezing and retention of property, that procedure must be followed strictly. The Adjudicating Authority had no jurisdiction to compel a fresh application after an earlier retention request had already been decided on merits, could not rely on Section 102 CrPC to justify freezing under the special statute, and could not continue freezing beyond the statutory period without complying with the Act's extension procedure. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the appeals were allowed. en-us Fri, 01 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Feb 2019 06:13:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374586 Where the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 prescribes a complete and time-bound mechanism for freezing and retention of property, that procedure must be followed strictly. The Adjudicating Authority had no jurisdiction to compel a fresh application after an earlier retention request had already been decided on merits, could not rely on Section 102 CrPC to justify freezing under the special statute, and could not continue freezing beyond the statutory period without complying with the Act's extension procedure. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the appeals were allowed. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 01 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374586