https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305670 The court denied the application for a stay on the operations of a summons issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The court clarified that petitioner No.2 must appear at the trial court to furnish bail bond/surety bond without being taken into custody and instructed him to respond to the summons from the Directorate of Enforcement. The court emphasized that arrest under Section 19 of the Act was not applicable at the post cognizance stage. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for a stay on the summons' operation. en-us Wed, 27 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Dec 2022 19:50:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305670 The court denied the application for a stay on the operations of a summons issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The court clarified that petitioner No.2 must appear at the trial court to furnish bail bond/surety bond without being taken into custody and instructed him to respond to the summons from the Directorate of Enforcement. The court emphasized that arrest under Section 19 of the Act was not applicable at the post cognizance stage. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for a stay on the summons' operation. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 27 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305670