https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385189 Attached mutual fund units could not be encashed while a challenge to the attachment order was pending and the operation of the underlying order had been stayed in connected proceedings. Rule 4(4) of the 2013 Rules required the attached movable property to be dealt with by transfer in favour of the Director of Enforcement, not by a premature change in its status. The Tribunal treated the encashment as contrary to the prescribed procedure because it altered the asset position without notice to the appellate court. Restoration to the original position was directed, failing which an equivalent fixed deposit was to be created and status quo maintained. en-us Fri, 23 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Aug 2019 12:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385189 Attached mutual fund units could not be encashed while a challenge to the attachment order was pending and the operation of the underlying order had been stayed in connected proceedings. Rule 4(4) of the 2013 Rules required the attached movable property to be dealt with by transfer in favour of the Director of Enforcement, not by a premature change in its status. The Tribunal treated the encashment as contrary to the prescribed procedure because it altered the asset position without notice to the appellate court. Restoration to the original position was directed, failing which an equivalent fixed deposit was to be created and status quo maintained. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 23 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385189