https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305228 The court acknowledged the importance of the 180-day validity period of provisional attachment orders under the Prevention of PMLA Act, 2002. Despite allowing adjudication proceedings to proceed, the court ruled that the final order should not be enforced until a related legal question was resolved by the Division Bench. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to continue the adjudication process with the petitioner's cooperation, but enforcement of the final order required court permission. The case was scheduled for further hearing on a specified date. en-us Thu, 23 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Nov 2022 10:41:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305228 The court acknowledged the importance of the 180-day validity period of provisional attachment orders under the Prevention of PMLA Act, 2002. Despite allowing adjudication proceedings to proceed, the court ruled that the final order should not be enforced until a related legal question was resolved by the Division Bench. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to continue the adjudication process with the petitioner's cooperation, but enforcement of the final order required court permission. The case was scheduled for further hearing on a specified date. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 23 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305228