https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433099 The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the confirmation order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, for lack of notice to the petitioner. It held that notice to the company sufficed legally, declining to entertain factual disputes on notice. Regarding the jurisdiction to pass the confirmation order beyond 180 days, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing adherence to past decisions. The petitioner was allowed to seek remedy under section 26 of the PMLA, with the jurisdictional issue left open for further pursuit. en-us Tue, 06 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jan 2023 10:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433099 The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the confirmation order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, for lack of notice to the petitioner. It held that notice to the company sufficed legally, declining to entertain factual disputes on notice. Regarding the jurisdiction to pass the confirmation order beyond 180 days, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing adherence to past decisions. The petitioner was allowed to seek remedy under section 26 of the PMLA, with the jurisdictional issue left open for further pursuit. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 06 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433099