<?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 (10) TMI 1870 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801927</link>
    <description>Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act permits arrest only as a discretionary and exceptional measure where an authorised officer records reasons to believe, based on material in possession, that a person is guilty. Summons, examination and production of records may proceed under Section 50, whose proceedings are judicial proceedings. Where a person has complied with repeated examinations and the material relied on already existed, the absence of fresh incriminating material or a supervening necessity may negate the demonstrated need for arrest. Arrest cannot bypass the ongoing examination process or merely facilitate investigation; on these facts, the arrest and consequential remand orders were invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2026 10:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=932479" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (10) TMI 1870 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801927</link>
      <description>Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act permits arrest only as a discretionary and exceptional measure where an authorised officer records reasons to believe, based on material in possession, that a person is guilty. Summons, examination and production of records may proceed under Section 50, whose proceedings are judicial proceedings. Where a person has complied with repeated examinations and the material relied on already existed, the absence of fresh incriminating material or a supervening necessity may negate the demonstrated need for arrest. Arrest cannot bypass the ongoing examination process or merely facilitate investigation; on these facts, the arrest and consequential remand orders were invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801927</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>