<?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>2014 (1) TMI 1914 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301716</link>
    <description>In an ongoing investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the complaint forming the basis of the inquiry had not been supplied to the petitioner. Because that complaint was the foundation of the investigation, the Court considered it necessary that the petitioner be furnished with a copy. The operative effect was that the petitioner was held entitled to receive the complaint underlying the money-laundering proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 17 Apr 2022 19:52:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=676264" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 1914 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301716</link>
      <description>In an ongoing investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the complaint forming the basis of the inquiry had not been supplied to the petitioner. Because that complaint was the foundation of the investigation, the Court considered it necessary that the petitioner be furnished with a copy. The operative effect was that the petitioner was held entitled to receive the complaint underlying the money-laundering proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301716</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>