https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456747 An order passed by a Designated Court under the attachment and claim provisions of TADA, read with Section 84 CrPC, was treated as interlocutory where it affected third-party claimants but did not finally determine their civil rights. Because a separate civil suit remedy remained available to a claimant whose objection was rejected, the order regulated only an intermediate matter and fell within the appeal bar in Section 19. A broader reading would risk parallel proceedings and inconsistent decisions. The consequence was that the appeal was not maintainable and the claimants were left to pursue civil court remedies. en-us Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Aug 2024 11:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456747 An order passed by a Designated Court under the attachment and claim provisions of TADA, read with Section 84 CrPC, was treated as interlocutory where it affected third-party claimants but did not finally determine their civil rights. Because a separate civil suit remedy remained available to a claimant whose objection was rejected, the order regulated only an intermediate matter and fell within the appeal bar in Section 19. A broader reading would risk parallel proceedings and inconsistent decisions. The consequence was that the appeal was not maintainable and the claimants were left to pursue civil court remedies. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456747