https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413884 The Bombay High Court treated the ECIR as an internal Enforcement Directorate record, not a public document or FIR, and held that its supply was not mandatory merely because PMLA summons had been issued; the request for quashing on that ground was rejected. It further held that allegations of malafides or abuse of process must be supported by concrete material, and that suspicion, date coincidence, or broad claims of political rivalry are insufficient to invalidate ECIRs, summons, or related proceedings; that challenge failed. The Court also declined to use writ or inherent jurisdiction to block coercive action where the petitioner had a statutory anticipatory bail remedy under Section 438 CrPC. en-us Thu, 14 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Oct 2021 07:52:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413884 The Bombay High Court treated the ECIR as an internal Enforcement Directorate record, not a public document or FIR, and held that its supply was not mandatory merely because PMLA summons had been issued; the request for quashing on that ground was rejected. It further held that allegations of malafides or abuse of process must be supported by concrete material, and that suspicion, date coincidence, or broad claims of political rivalry are insufficient to invalidate ECIRs, summons, or related proceedings; that challenge failed. The Court also declined to use writ or inherent jurisdiction to block coercive action where the petitioner had a statutory anticipatory bail remedy under Section 438 CrPC. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 14 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413884