Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2014 (3) TMI 137 - HC - Money LaunderingPrinciple of natural justice - appellant contends that if the appellants have a right in law to cross-examine the witnesses whose testimonies are intended to be used against the appellants why should this Court not interfere at this stage itself instead of allowing the Adjudicating Authority to proceed on a futile exercise and which will only result in multiplicity of proceedings. - Proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. Held that - The Adjudicating Authority is currently seized of and in seisin of the complaints. We at this stage do not know as to which way the order of the Adjudicating Authority will go. It cannot also be said at this stage whether the Adjudicating Authority even if deciding against the appellants will rely upon the material before it qua which the appellants claim a right of cross-examination. All this can be known only when the Adjudicating Authority passes an order and qua which if the appellants are aggrieved the appellants shall have their statutory remedy. Any interference by us at this stage in the proceedings of which the Adjudicating Authority is seized is thus uncalled for and would result in a situation which the Supreme Court has warned the High Courts to avoid. - The Supreme Court 2006 (11) TMI 543 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA held that the writ jurisdiction being discretionary should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show cause notice. - Decided against the petitioners.
|