https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784243 A challenge to cognizance under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 failed because the petitioner could not show actual prejudice from the alleged absence of a pre-cognizance hearing under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court noted that the petitioner and counsel were present when cognizance was taken and that the petitioner was later heard on merits, so the cognizance order was not liable to be set aside. The belated petition also failed because no sufficient cause was shown for the delay, and the explanation offered for late filing was found unsatisfactory. en-us Wed, 24 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Dec 2025 09:18:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784243 A challenge to cognizance under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 failed because the petitioner could not show actual prejudice from the alleged absence of a pre-cognizance hearing under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court noted that the petitioner and counsel were present when cognizance was taken and that the petitioner was later heard on merits, so the cognizance order was not liable to be set aside. The belated petition also failed because no sufficient cause was shown for the delay, and the explanation offered for late filing was found unsatisfactory. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 24 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784243