https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783775 In Article 226 writ proceedings, a High Court need not permit an amendment that introduces a fresh challenge to the constitutional validity of Sections 50 and 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 where that issue has already been upheld by the Supreme Court or is pending before it. The Court held that the liberal amendment approach under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC does not apply in the same manner to writ proceedings, and Section 141 CPC excludes such proceedings. However, consequential prayers linked to the existing reliefs, and correction of a typographical reference to Article 32 in the synopsis, were allowed because they did not raise a barred independent controversy. en-us Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2025 07:59:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783775 In Article 226 writ proceedings, a High Court need not permit an amendment that introduces a fresh challenge to the constitutional validity of Sections 50 and 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 where that issue has already been upheld by the Supreme Court or is pending before it. The Court held that the liberal amendment approach under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC does not apply in the same manner to writ proceedings, and Section 141 CPC excludes such proceedings. However, consequential prayers linked to the existing reliefs, and correction of a typographical reference to Article 32 in the synopsis, were allowed because they did not raise a barred independent controversy. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783775