<?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>2015 (7) TMI 1387 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298266</link>
    <description>During a preliminary investigation under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, an ECIR was treated as an internal Enforcement Directorate document and not as material disclosure-worthy as of right. The Court held that summons issued under Section 50 identified the material required, and compelled disclosure of the ECIR, FIR details, and connected documents would impede the investigation; disclosure was therefore refused. Allegations of mala fides against the investigating officer were also rejected because they were unsupported and the arrest of the petitioner&#039;s husband had been made pursuant to a court-issued warrant in separate proceedings. No direction for disclosure was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2021 21:25:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=659207" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (7) TMI 1387 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298266</link>
      <description>During a preliminary investigation under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, an ECIR was treated as an internal Enforcement Directorate document and not as material disclosure-worthy as of right. The Court held that summons issued under Section 50 identified the material required, and compelled disclosure of the ECIR, FIR details, and connected documents would impede the investigation; disclosure was therefore refused. Allegations of mala fides against the investigating officer were also rejected because they were unsupported and the arrest of the petitioner&#039;s husband had been made pursuant to a court-issued warrant in separate proceedings. No direction for disclosure was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298266</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>