https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757511 Typographical and factual errors in an earlier Delhi HC order were examined for limited rectification, not substantive recall. The court noted that the alleged mistakes arose from intermingling facts from connected proceedings, including references to summons, payment figures, attributed allegations, and findings recorded in paragraphs that were only allegations. It held that the constitutional validity of Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 had already been upheld, so that point could not support recall. The order was rectified only to correct identified factual references and remove erroneous findings, while the substantive outcome of the earlier order remained unchanged. en-us Wed, 14 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Aug 2024 18:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757511 Typographical and factual errors in an earlier Delhi HC order were examined for limited rectification, not substantive recall. The court noted that the alleged mistakes arose from intermingling facts from connected proceedings, including references to summons, payment figures, attributed allegations, and findings recorded in paragraphs that were only allegations. It held that the constitutional validity of Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 had already been upheld, so that point could not support recall. The order was rectified only to correct identified factual references and remove erroneous findings, while the substantive outcome of the earlier order remained unchanged. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 14 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757511