<?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>2022 (12) TMI 454 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431337</link>
    <description>The court granted bail to the applicant as the allegations did not constitute scheduled offences under PMLA. The actions of ISEC and the applicant did not meet the criteria for offences under the Telegraph Act, IT Act, IPC, or PC Act. The decision emphasized the importance of privacy rights and the specific requirements for invoking penal provisions under various statutes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Dec 2022 11:15:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=698243" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (12) TMI 454 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431337</link>
      <description>The court granted bail to the applicant as the allegations did not constitute scheduled offences under PMLA. The actions of ISEC and the applicant did not meet the criteria for offences under the Telegraph Act, IT Act, IPC, or PC Act. The decision emphasized the importance of privacy rights and the specific requirements for invoking penal provisions under various statutes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431337</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>