<?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>2020 (3) TMI 86 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392942</link>
    <description>The High Court of Madras ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing adherence to procedural requirements and principles of natural justice under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, directing the third respondent to afford the petitioner an opportunity to raise objections within a specified timeline.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2020 11:00:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=605714" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (3) TMI 86 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392942</link>
      <description>The High Court of Madras ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing adherence to procedural requirements and principles of natural justice under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, directing the third respondent to afford the petitioner an opportunity to raise objections within a specified timeline.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392942</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>