https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434748 The Delhi High Court upheld the Appellate Authority's decision rejecting the transfer application to a two-member bench under the PMLA. The Court emphasized the availability of an alternate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal and clarified that the provision did not allow parties to request a two-member bench, citing potential delays. It was concluded that the appropriate remedy for challenging the Adjudicating Authority's decision was through an appeal under Section 26, rather than a writ petition under Article 226. The Court highlighted the need for multiple benches in the Adjudicating Authority due to the high volume of pending cases under the PMLA. en-us Mon, 20 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Mar 2023 13:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434748 The Delhi High Court upheld the Appellate Authority's decision rejecting the transfer application to a two-member bench under the PMLA. The Court emphasized the availability of an alternate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal and clarified that the provision did not allow parties to request a two-member bench, citing potential delays. It was concluded that the appropriate remedy for challenging the Adjudicating Authority's decision was through an appeal under Section 26, rather than a writ petition under Article 226. The Court highlighted the need for multiple benches in the Adjudicating Authority due to the high volume of pending cases under the PMLA. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 20 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434748