<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (12) TMI 1385 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311580</link>
    <description>A secured creditor&#039;s mortgage did not override PMLA attachment where the properties were prima facie found to be proceeds of crime and the mortgages were created later than the alleged fraudulent acquisition. The Tribunal held that SARFAESI proceedings and claims of bona fide third-party status did not justify release of the attached properties on these facts, so the attachment was upheld against the appellant. It further held that the attachment order disclosed sufficient material to form the required &quot;reason to believe&quot;, and no legal infirmity was shown in the confirmation order. The challenge based on non-applicability of Section 3 also failed, and the confirmation of provisional attachment was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Jan 2024 05:33:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=738900" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (12) TMI 1385 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311580</link>
      <description>A secured creditor&#039;s mortgage did not override PMLA attachment where the properties were prima facie found to be proceeds of crime and the mortgages were created later than the alleged fraudulent acquisition. The Tribunal held that SARFAESI proceedings and claims of bona fide third-party status did not justify release of the attached properties on these facts, so the attachment was upheld against the appellant. It further held that the attachment order disclosed sufficient material to form the required &quot;reason to believe&quot;, and no legal infirmity was shown in the confirmation order. The challenge based on non-applicability of Section 3 also failed, and the confirmation of provisional attachment was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311580</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>