<?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>2020 (12) TMI 1296 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299129</link>
    <description>The court upheld the validity of the provisional attachment orders, confirmation orders, possession notices, and the initiation of proceedings under PMLA. The constitutional validity of Section 8(4) of PMLA was also upheld. The challenges to the actions taken by the authorities under PMLA were dismissed, and the court found that the authorities acted within their jurisdiction and in compliance with the provisions of PMLA.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2021 15:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=662824" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (12) TMI 1296 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299129</link>
      <description>The court upheld the validity of the provisional attachment orders, confirmation orders, possession notices, and the initiation of proceedings under PMLA. The constitutional validity of Section 8(4) of PMLA was also upheld. The challenges to the actions taken by the authorities under PMLA were dismissed, and the court found that the authorities acted within their jurisdiction and in compliance with the provisions of PMLA.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299129</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>