<?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>2024 (11) TMI 1627 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468068</link>
    <description>A claimant seeking release of property from PMLA restraint must establish a credible and complete chain of title. On the materials, Urmil Gupta&#039;s title to Plot No. 47 was accepted because her sale deed was supported by earlier conveyance and transfer documents, and the site-plan particulars matched the locality; the property was therefore directed to be released from attachment/freeze, subject to the pending civil suit. Mahavir Singh Saini&#039;s claim to Plot Nos. 47 and 48 failed because the agreements to sell did not culminate in registered conveyances, payment and transfer were incomplete, and the title chain was not proved. His challenge to the freezing confirmation was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2026 20:22:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896923" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 1627 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468068</link>
      <description>A claimant seeking release of property from PMLA restraint must establish a credible and complete chain of title. On the materials, Urmil Gupta&#039;s title to Plot No. 47 was accepted because her sale deed was supported by earlier conveyance and transfer documents, and the site-plan particulars matched the locality; the property was therefore directed to be released from attachment/freeze, subject to the pending civil suit. Mahavir Singh Saini&#039;s claim to Plot Nos. 47 and 48 failed because the agreements to sell did not culminate in registered conveyances, payment and transfer were incomplete, and the title chain was not proved. His challenge to the freezing confirmation was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468068</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>