<?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>2026 (7) TMI 78 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794192</link>
    <description>Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 requires the Magistrate to record a genuine, objective &quot;reason to believe&quot; on material showing a rational link between the facts and the conclusion that property is proceeds of crime; a mere assumption or suspicion is insufficient, and the original attachment could not stand. The attachment procedure must also be strictly followed, including notice to persons having an interest in the property, and non-response to notice does not by itself cure procedural safeguards. The revisional court was therefore correct in setting aside the attachment order, and the challenge failed, though fresh attachment remained permissible in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2026 08:07:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=909587" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 78 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794192</link>
      <description>Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 requires the Magistrate to record a genuine, objective &quot;reason to believe&quot; on material showing a rational link between the facts and the conclusion that property is proceeds of crime; a mere assumption or suspicion is insufficient, and the original attachment could not stand. The attachment procedure must also be strictly followed, including notice to persons having an interest in the property, and non-response to notice does not by itself cure procedural safeguards. The revisional court was therefore correct in setting aside the attachment order, and the challenge failed, though fresh attachment remained permissible in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794192</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>