https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405804 The court found the "debit-freeze" order issued by the 3rd respondent on the petitioners' bank accounts to be invalid due to non-compliance with procedural requirements under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the order, and directed the bank to permit the petitioners to operate their accounts. The judgment emphasized the necessity of following due process and procedural safeguards in exercising powers under the Act, highlighting the importance of adherence to legal requirements in such cases. en-us Fri, 05 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Mar 2021 07:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405804 The court found the "debit-freeze" order issued by the 3rd respondent on the petitioners' bank accounts to be invalid due to non-compliance with procedural requirements under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the order, and directed the bank to permit the petitioners to operate their accounts. The judgment emphasized the necessity of following due process and procedural safeguards in exercising powers under the Act, highlighting the importance of adherence to legal requirements in such cases. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 05 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405804