https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784198 Whether refusal to release a provisionally attached asset under s. 8(8) PMLA could stand without affording a hearing and without recorded compliance with Rule 3A(4) was the dominant issue. The HC held that the affected parties were not granted any hearing at all and the impugned order did not demonstrate adherence to the mandatory procedural requirement, amounting to a breach of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside only to the extent it concerned the specified equity shares (Asset No. 6), and the s. 8(8) application was remanded to the Special Court for fresh, time-bound adjudication limited to that asset; the petition was disposed of. en-us Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Dec 2025 09:17:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784198 Whether refusal to release a provisionally attached asset under s. 8(8) PMLA could stand without affording a hearing and without recorded compliance with Rule 3A(4) was the dominant issue. The HC held that the affected parties were not granted any hearing at all and the impugned order did not demonstrate adherence to the mandatory procedural requirement, amounting to a breach of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside only to the extent it concerned the specified equity shares (Asset No. 6), and the s. 8(8) application was remanded to the Special Court for fresh, time-bound adjudication limited to that asset; the petition was disposed of. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784198