https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402667 The Court held that a writ petition against summons under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not maintainable, citing legal precedents. It denied the request for a legal practitioner's presence during questioning, stating it's not permitted. Allegations of harassment were dismissed, and the Court refused to entertain an amendment seeking guidelines for summoned persons. Emphasizing that writ petitions require rights violation, not just summons, the Court clarified that appearance in response to summons is mandatory without court interference in investigation processes. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed based on established legal positions and precedents. en-us Wed, 06 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jan 2021 10:21:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402667 The Court held that a writ petition against summons under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not maintainable, citing legal precedents. It denied the request for a legal practitioner's presence during questioning, stating it's not permitted. Allegations of harassment were dismissed, and the Court refused to entertain an amendment seeking guidelines for summoned persons. Emphasizing that writ petitions require rights violation, not just summons, the Court clarified that appearance in response to summons is mandatory without court interference in investigation processes. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed based on established legal positions and precedents. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 06 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402667