https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762892 The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA confirmed the provisional attachment order for multiple properties belonging to appellants. One property in Ranchi was already in appellant's possession per HC Jharkhand order. For other properties in Udaipur and Bangalore, appellants sought restoration of possession citing Vijay Madanlal Choudhary precedent and better maintenance capabilities. Appellants agreed to abide by attachment conditions until trial completion. The Tribunal disposed of appeals without interfering with the provisional attachment order, directing appellants not to alienate, transfer, or deal with properties until trial conclusion before Special Court. en-us Thu, 21 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Dec 2024 17:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762892 The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA confirmed the provisional attachment order for multiple properties belonging to appellants. One property in Ranchi was already in appellant's possession per HC Jharkhand order. For other properties in Udaipur and Bangalore, appellants sought restoration of possession citing Vijay Madanlal Choudhary precedent and better maintenance capabilities. Appellants agreed to abide by attachment conditions until trial completion. The Tribunal disposed of appeals without interfering with the provisional attachment order, directing appellants not to alienate, transfer, or deal with properties until trial conclusion before Special Court. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 21 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762892