https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311078 The HC dismissed petitions challenging money laundering proceedings for lack of territorial jurisdiction. Petitioners argued jurisdiction based on their residence in Chandigarh/Panchkula/Ludhiana, property attachments, and summons service locations. The HC held that residence of accused and property locations do not establish cause of action. Since the underlying PMLA case was pending in Greater Bombay court and no part of cause of action arose within Punjab and Haryana jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction lay with Bombay HC. The HC found petitioners guilty of misusing legal process and interfering with justice administration, imposing exemplary costs. Interim orders including bail became inconsequential upon dismissal. en-us Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Dec 2023 06:21:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311078 The HC dismissed petitions challenging money laundering proceedings for lack of territorial jurisdiction. Petitioners argued jurisdiction based on their residence in Chandigarh/Panchkula/Ludhiana, property attachments, and summons service locations. The HC held that residence of accused and property locations do not establish cause of action. Since the underlying PMLA case was pending in Greater Bombay court and no part of cause of action arose within Punjab and Haryana jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction lay with Bombay HC. The HC found petitioners guilty of misusing legal process and interfering with justice administration, imposing exemplary costs. Interim orders including bail became inconsequential upon dismissal. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311078