<?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 774 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431657</link>
    <description>A person in admitted possession of attached property, though not the recorded owner, may qualify as an aggrieved person for purposes of challenging possession notice and attachment-related eviction under the PMLA. The Court held that such a possessor must be given the attachment confirmation order and an effective opportunity to invoke the statutory appeal under Section 26 before dispossession. Eviction could not proceed until that appellate remedy was made available and decided. The possession notice was therefore kept in abeyance, and service of the attachment order on the petitioners was directed to enable them to pursue the statutory remedy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2022 09:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=699008" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (12) TMI 774 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431657</link>
      <description>A person in admitted possession of attached property, though not the recorded owner, may qualify as an aggrieved person for purposes of challenging possession notice and attachment-related eviction under the PMLA. The Court held that such a possessor must be given the attachment confirmation order and an effective opportunity to invoke the statutory appeal under Section 26 before dispossession. Eviction could not proceed until that appellate remedy was made available and decided. The possession notice was therefore kept in abeyance, and service of the attachment order on the petitioners was directed to enable them to pursue the statutory remedy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431657</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>