https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392941 The Original Side Rules were noted as lacking a specific case code and hearing procedure for appeals under section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and that omission was treated as an administrative matter for possible amendment by the Chief Justice and the appropriate committee. The explanation to section 42 was also identified as raising a maintainability question where the respondent lies outside the Court's ordinary original civil jurisdiction. As the appeal had already been assigned, the Court confined itself to procedure, directed service of the condonation application, and called for a limitation report; no final ruling was given on merits or maintainability. en-us Wed, 15 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Mar 2020 17:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392941 The Original Side Rules were noted as lacking a specific case code and hearing procedure for appeals under section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and that omission was treated as an administrative matter for possible amendment by the Chief Justice and the appropriate committee. The explanation to section 42 was also identified as raising a maintainability question where the respondent lies outside the Court's ordinary original civil jurisdiction. As the appeal had already been assigned, the Court confined itself to procedure, directed service of the condonation application, and called for a limitation report; no final ruling was given on merits or maintainability. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 15 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392941