https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439839 A belated application styled as one for modification or clarification cannot be used to reopen a final judgment that had already conclusively decided the constitution of the Adjudicating Authority's Bench under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The High Court held that the request, filed nearly eight years later, was in substance an indirect attempt at review or reversal of a concluded decision and was therefore not maintainable. It further held that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be invoked to assist abuse of process or to secure a de facto review where no timely appeal or review was pursued. The application was rejected. en-us Tue, 27 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Jul 2023 08:55:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439839 A belated application styled as one for modification or clarification cannot be used to reopen a final judgment that had already conclusively decided the constitution of the Adjudicating Authority's Bench under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The High Court held that the request, filed nearly eight years later, was in substance an indirect attempt at review or reversal of a concluded decision and was therefore not maintainable. It further held that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be invoked to assist abuse of process or to secure a de facto review where no timely appeal or review was pursued. The application was rejected. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 27 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439839