https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381252 The court dismissed the petition challenging the provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. It upheld the constitutional validity of the relevant sections of the Act and emphasized the distinction between a company and its shareholders. The court applied the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil restrictively, finding individuals controlling the company involved in money laundering. It refused discretionary relief under Article 226, directing the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies and show cause to the attachment order due to serious money laundering allegations. en-us Thu, 30 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Feb 2020 14:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381252 The court dismissed the petition challenging the provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. It upheld the constitutional validity of the relevant sections of the Act and emphasized the distinction between a company and its shareholders. The court applied the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil restrictively, finding individuals controlling the company involved in money laundering. It refused discretionary relief under Article 226, directing the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies and show cause to the attachment order due to serious money laundering allegations. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 30 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381252