https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298029 The Calcutta High Court noted that the Supreme Court's suo motu limitation extension applied to pending judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, so the 180-day period for adjudication under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act had not expired. It also considered that the petitioner had already ated in the adjudication and that final orders were still awaited, which distinguished the cited precedent. On that basis, the plea that the adjudicating authority had become functus officio was not accepted, and the request to stay the proceedings was rejected; any adverse adjudication was to remain subject to the writ petition. en-us Fri, 02 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Oct 2021 20:03:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298029 The Calcutta High Court noted that the Supreme Court's suo motu limitation extension applied to pending judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, so the 180-day period for adjudication under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act had not expired. It also considered that the petitioner had already ated in the adjudication and that final orders were still awaited, which distinguished the cited precedent. On that basis, the plea that the adjudicating authority had become functus officio was not accepted, and the request to stay the proceedings was rejected; any adverse adjudication was to remain subject to the writ petition. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 02 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298029