https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762364 Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, cognizance by the Special Court was treated as valid once the court applied its mind to the complaint and proceeded with the matter, even without a formal order using the word "cognizance"; the challenge on that basis failed. The Court also held that Explanation II to Section 44(1)(b) is clarificatory, permits supplementary complaints based on further investigation, and applies retrospectively. On that construction, the complaint could be supplemented without waiting for all investigation to conclude, and the objections to maintainability were rejected. en-us Mon, 11 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Nov 2024 14:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762364 Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, cognizance by the Special Court was treated as valid once the court applied its mind to the complaint and proceeded with the matter, even without a formal order using the word "cognizance"; the challenge on that basis failed. The Court also held that Explanation II to Section 44(1)(b) is clarificatory, permits supplementary complaints based on further investigation, and applies retrospectively. On that construction, the complaint could be supplemented without waiting for all investigation to conclude, and the objections to maintainability were rejected. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 11 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762364