Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering 2023 2023 This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Money Laundering - Case Laws

Showing 341 to 342 of 342 Records

• 2023 (1) TMI 502
  

  Seeking grant of Bail - existence of offence of Money Laundering or not - scheduled offences punishable under Sections 402, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - predicate offence - filing of C-Summary report - whether filing of C-Summary report and acceptance by the Magistrate take away the seriousness of the offence as independent proceedings are registered and as charge- sheet is already filed in the PMLA case? - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to note that in the present case, the complainant at whose instance the proceedings were initiated submitted his no objection to the acceptance of the C-Summary report. The MMRDA which is alleged to have suffered losses has not filed any complaint of breach of contract or that they are defrauded. Of course, these are matters to be taken into consideration by the Special Court trying the PMLA case and my observations therefore, may be construed as prima facie in nature for the purpose of considering the request for releasing the applicants on interim bail. Once the C-Summary report has been filed and accepted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and ors. [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT], prima facie, there can be no offence of money laundering against the applicants.

  There are no force in the submission of Mr. Venegaonkar that till the period of 90 days for filing the Revision challenging the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate accepting the C-Summary report is over, the application for bail is not tenable. The question is of liberty of an individual which is valuable. The period of 90 days for filing the Revision challenging the acceptance of the C-Summary report cannot be read to mean as an automatic stay to the order accepting C-Summary report. The Revision is but a statutory remedy provided by law to challenge the impugned order (acceptance of C-Summary). The limitation prescribed for filing the Revision cannot be construed as a stay to the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate.

  The applicants are in custody for more than 2 years. The maximum punishment for the offence under Section 4 is 7 years imprisonment. The applicant-Marath is 71 years of age and a retired officer of the Indian Navy who has roots in the society. The applicant-Amit is an entrepreneur. There are no criminal antecedents reported against the applicants. In my opinion, subject to the challenge, if any, to the order of C-Summary and subject to further orders that may be passed thereon, the prayer of the applicants for grant of interim bail needs to be considered - on filing of a C-Summary report in the EOW case, in the light of the observations quoted abbove in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and ors., the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA will not apply. The charge-sheet has been filed. The investigation is complete.

  Application allowed.

  ---

• 2023 (1) TMI 298
  

  Provisional attachment order - seeking eviction of the present owner - the case is that since the Petitioner is 50% owner of all these properties, the occupants cannot be evicted in this manner - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, Sh. Pankaj Jain and Sh. Sanjay Jain are brothers. They own equal shares in the properties listed above. The ED is seeking eviction of the occupants from the properties, qua the share of Sh. Pankaj Jain, but the same are under occupation of the family of Sh. Sanjay Jain or tenants. The appeal filed by Sh. Pankaj Jain against whom the attachment order has been finally confirmed, is presently pending before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 25 of PMLA.

  A perusal of Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 shows that orders of attachment passed by the Adjudicating Authority are appealable to the Appellate Tribunal at the instance of `any person aggrieved’. In the opinion of this Court, Sh. Sanjay Jain who is the Petitioner before this Court would also be a `person aggrieved’ who would be entitled to approach the Appellate Tribunal and challenge the attachment order or object to the impugned notices issued pursuant to the attachment order - Admittedly, the family of the Petitioner is residing in two of the seven premises – from where the occupants are sought to be evicted. Some of the premises are also tenanted premises. Thus, the effect of Rule 5(3) and Rule 5(5) would have to be considered by the Tribunal. Even the Petitioner’s challenge to the provisional attachment order in respect of these very properties is stated to be pending before the Adjudicating Authority and the same is yet to be confirmed.

  The Petitioner is permitted to file an appeal, within a week challenging the final attachment order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 29th September, 2022 before the Appellate Tribunal - Petition disposed off.

  ---

1 ....1415161718