Judgments & Authorities

In Appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority; the Beneficial Owner can be removed from the Array of Respondents as Beneficial Owner

Court :- APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PROHIBITION FOR BENAMI PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS ACTAT NEW DELHI http://atfp.gov.in/writereaddata/upload//Judgement/Judgement_29DIB1QQ4M_44499.PDF , Citation :- Johnson Watch Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Initiating Officer, Circle 1(1) (http://atfp.gov.in/writereaddata/upload//Order/Order_F928LTKHRU_74162.PDF) MANU/AT/0001/2019 Johnson Watch Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Initiating Officer, Circle 1(1) (23.01.2019 - ATFP) : MANU/AT/0001/2019

The above-named Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 46 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions (PBPT) Act, 1988 against the Order dated 18.05.2018 in reference number R-7/2017 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, PBPT.

 

The respondent had filed a reference before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority under Section 24(5) of the PBPT Act, 1988 for the confirmation of Provisional

Read More

Law Regarding Agents, and the liability of the Principal for the unauthorized acts of Agent

Court :- Supreme Court of India , Citation :- Motilal Kalal vs. SantaTech Mahindra Limited Vs. Respondent: Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad and Ors. Decision by Hn’ble Mr. J. P. Naveen Rao, J. (Citation MANU/AP/2921/2014)

In Sitaram Motilal Kalal vs. Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt MANU/SC/0009/1966 : AIR 1966 SC 1697, Supreme Court held as under:

"33. The law with regard to agents is the same. As was observed by Lord Atkinson in Samson v. Aitchison,

Read More

Sscope of maintainability of a writ petition

Court :- Supreme Court of India , Citation :- ABL International Ltd. and another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and others (2004) 3 SCC 553

In ABL International Ltd. and another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and others MANU/SC/1080/2003 : (2004) 3 SCC 553, Supreme Court considered earlier decisions on scope of maintainability of a writ petition and held as under:

Read More

Prevention of Corruption Act, and Bail under PMLA

Court :- Delhi High Court , Citation :- Upendra Rai vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (MANU/DE/4591/2018) http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/MUG/judgement/13-12-2018/MUG11122018BA23262018.pdf

In this case, the petitioner through a petition before the High Court of Delhi (Court) sought bail in FIR under sections 120-B/384 IPC and Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).

The abovementioned FIR was registered on the complaint of Balvinder Malhotra, Director of M/s. White Lion Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. (White Lion Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai who alleged that the petitioner approached a relative of the promoter of White Lion

Read More

SECTION 26E OF SARFAESI ACT, 2002 AND 31B DEBT RECOVERY & BANKRUPTCY, 1993 WILL HAVE OVERRIDING EFFECT OVER SECTION 71 OF PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002

Court :- APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT NEW DELHI , Citation :- Bank of Baroda and Ors. vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai and Ors. (MANU/ML/0044/2018) http://atfp.gov.in/writereaddata/upload//Judgement/Judgement_99MQH3UFS7_54711.PDF

In this case, the appeals, before the Appellate Tribunal under Prevention of Money Laundering Act New Delhi (Tribunal), were taken up together for a common order as they had identical facts, involved similar questions of law and arose out of the same ECIR and Impugned order

The Appellants had filed these appeals under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) against the common Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority.

The Appellants are Bank

Read More

Are the PMLA offences cognizable or non-cognizable?

Court :- Delhi High Court , Citation :- Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit vs. Union of India and Ors. (MANU/DE/0734/2018) http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/SMD/judgement/19-02-2018/SMD19022018CRLW3632018.pdf

The first issue that arose in this case was that sections 44 and 45 of the PMLA had been amended to make the offence non-cognizable so that only the Director could take action but the heading of section 45, that is, Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable was not changed. So the court had to deal with the question ‘Are t

Read More

APPLICABILITY OF CrPC APPLICABLE TO PMLA

Court :- Delhi High Court , Citation :- Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit vs. Union of India and Ors. (MANU/DE/0734/2018) http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/SMD/judgement/19-02-2018/SMD19022018CRLW3632018.pdf

In this case the petitioner, Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit, had moved a writ of habeas corpus before the High Court of Delhi (Court) for his release from custody. He has sought a declaration that issuance of a non-bailable warrant (NBW), his arrest pursuant thereto in ECIR and the resultant remand orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) was without the authority of law and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of Ind

Read More

DEMONETIZATION. BAIL GRANTED TO ACCUSED FOLLOWING THE DECISION RENDERING TWIN CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 45 OF PMLA UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Court :- Delhi High Court , Citation :- Raj Kumar Goel and Ors. vs. Directorate of Enforcement (MANU/DE/1735/2018) http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/MUG/judgement/10-05-2018/MUG10052018BA3502018.pdf

In the present case the petitioners, Rohit Tandon and Raj Kumar Goel, sought regular bail in ECIR recorded by Enforcement Directorate under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The abovementioned ECIR was recorded pursuant to FIR registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406/409/420/468/471/188/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The scheduled offence therein being punishable under Sections 420/471/120B IPC.

Read More

PROVISIONS OF PMLA CAN BE INVOKED AGAINST THE ABETTOR OF A SCHEDULED OFFENCE

Court :- Delhi High Court , Citation :- Anand Chauhan vs. Directorate of Enforcement ( MANU/DE/0928/2017 ) http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VSA/judgement/10-04-2017/VSA10042017BA22412016.pdf

The petitioner in this case, before the High Court of Delhi (Court), had preferred the bail application  during the pendency of writ petition of Habeas Corpus before this court and sought regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) read with Section 45 of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

CBI had registered FIR under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) [Scheduled offen

Read More
Connect With Us Social Media