<?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>2025 (10) TMI 1077 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780281</link>
    <description>Section 19(1) PMLA arrest is an investigative power, but it must rest on material in the authorised officer&#039;s possession, recorded reasons to believe, and communication of grounds of arrest. Judicial review is confined to legality and procedural compliance; it does not permit reappreciation of the sufficiency of material or a mini-trial in writ jurisdiction. Non-issuance of summons under Section 50 does not by itself invalidate the arrest, and alleged issues about delay, further investigation, remand, or the adequacy of evidence raise disputed questions that cannot conclusively be decided in writ proceedings. On the stated facts, the arrest and consequential proceedings were not liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2025 08:33:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=860545" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 1077 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780281</link>
      <description>Section 19(1) PMLA arrest is an investigative power, but it must rest on material in the authorised officer&#039;s possession, recorded reasons to believe, and communication of grounds of arrest. Judicial review is confined to legality and procedural compliance; it does not permit reappreciation of the sufficiency of material or a mini-trial in writ jurisdiction. Non-issuance of summons under Section 50 does not by itself invalidate the arrest, and alleged issues about delay, further investigation, remand, or the adequacy of evidence raise disputed questions that cannot conclusively be decided in writ proceedings. On the stated facts, the arrest and consequential proceedings were not liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780281</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>