<?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>High Court Dismisses PMLA Case Against Developer, Rules Contract Dispute Civil in Nature Due to Substantial Work Completion.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85099</link>
    <description>HC quashed criminal proceedings under PMLA and IPC sections, finding insufficient evidence of &#039;proceeds of crime&#039; as defined u/s 2(1)(u) of PMLA. The court determined that M/s. A (developer) had substantially fulfilled contractual obligations, with B (complainant) acknowledging completion of works except for a minor outstanding amount. The dispute was deemed civil in nature, lacking criminal intent required for charges of cheating. The court criticized the ED&#039;s allegations regarding non-delivery of services as unfounded, given documented evidence of work completion and corresponding payments. The matter was characterized as a contractual dispute inappropriately converted into criminal proceedings, resulting in dismissal with observations on potential exemplary costs against complainant and ED for harassment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2025 08:39:36 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2025 08:39:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=791210" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>High Court Dismisses PMLA Case Against Developer, Rules Contract Dispute Civil in Nature Due to Substantial Work Completion.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85099</link>
      <description>HC quashed criminal proceedings under PMLA and IPC sections, finding insufficient evidence of &#039;proceeds of crime&#039; as defined u/s 2(1)(u) of PMLA. The court determined that M/s. A (developer) had substantially fulfilled contractual obligations, with B (complainant) acknowledging completion of works except for a minor outstanding amount. The dispute was deemed civil in nature, lacking criminal intent required for charges of cheating. The court criticized the ED&#039;s allegations regarding non-delivery of services as unfounded, given documented evidence of work completion and corresponding payments. The matter was characterized as a contractual dispute inappropriately converted into criminal proceedings, resulting in dismissal with observations on potential exemplary costs against complainant and ED for harassment.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2025 08:39:36 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85099</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>