https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295749 Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, appeals had to be filed within the statutory period, and condonation depended on sufficient cause. The Karnataka HC held that the appellants could not rely on earlier writ proceedings to claim exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act because the adjudicating authority's order had not been specifically challenged, the writ petitions proceeded on an incorrect assumption that appeals were already filed, and no bona fide prosecution before the wrong forum was shown. The Court found the delay unexplained and the appellants negligent in pursuing the correct remedy. As a result, the delay was not condoned and Section 14 relief was denied. en-us Mon, 24 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Jun 2021 08:11:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295749 Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, appeals had to be filed within the statutory period, and condonation depended on sufficient cause. The Karnataka HC held that the appellants could not rely on earlier writ proceedings to claim exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act because the adjudicating authority's order had not been specifically challenged, the writ petitions proceeded on an incorrect assumption that appeals were already filed, and no bona fide prosecution before the wrong forum was shown. The Court found the delay unexplained and the appellants negligent in pursuing the correct remedy. As a result, the delay was not condoned and Section 14 relief was denied. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 24 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295749