https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792681 A strict appellate limitation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could not be relaxed on the facts, because a 225-day delay in re-filing the appeal was left unsatisfactorily explained and was therefore not condoned. The High Court also found no infirmity in the Tribunal's directions distinguishing between seized documents and digital devices forming part of the prosecution complaint and those not forming part of it; the latter could be released, while the former could be retained and used on the terms recorded. Further relief, if any, was left to the statutory remedy under Section 35(3). en-us Tue, 26 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Jun 2026 08:47:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792681 A strict appellate limitation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could not be relaxed on the facts, because a 225-day delay in re-filing the appeal was left unsatisfactorily explained and was therefore not condoned. The High Court also found no infirmity in the Tribunal's directions distinguishing between seized documents and digital devices forming part of the prosecution complaint and those not forming part of it; the latter could be released, while the former could be retained and used on the terms recorded. Further relief, if any, was left to the statutory remedy under Section 35(3). Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 26 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792681