{"id":214833,"date":"2019-05-18T11:30:59","date_gmt":"2019-05-18T06:00:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=214833"},"modified":"2019-05-18T09:57:53","modified_gmt":"2019-05-18T04:27:53","slug":"pmla-appellate-tribunal-properties-seized-must-be-defrozen-after-lapse-of-statutorily-prescribed-time-period-of-90-days","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/18\/pmla-appellate-tribunal-properties-seized-must-be-defrozen-after-lapse-of-statutorily-prescribed-time-period-of-90-days\/","title":{"rendered":"PMLA Appellate Tribunal | Properties seized must be defrozen after lapse of statutorily prescribed time period of 90 days"},"content":{"rendered":"

Appellate<\/strong> Tribunal for Prevention of Money Laundering: <\/strong>A Coram of Justice Manmohan Singh (Chairperson) and G.C Mishra (Member) allowed an appeal against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority to retain seized assets based on a reasonable belief of the respondents.<\/p>\n

In this instant case, an FIR was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation in relation to allegations that Sterling Group of companies and the Sandesara Group were involved in bribing public officials in the period between the period 2005 to 2011 for obtaining tenders for the supply of goods, loans by banks and financial institutions. The statements of one Ajay Panchal, who was maintaining diaries in the year 2011 was recorded, and it was stated that Angadias, one of the appellants, were involved in the transfer of suspected proceeds of crime from Vadodara to Delhi between \u201cStarling Biotech Limited and various individuals\/entities based in Delhi\u201d. <\/em>There was a search of the appellant\u2019s premises and properties were seized based on the FIR.<\/p>\n

The Appellate Tribunal took note of the allegations against the appellants and ordered that the impugned orders were passed without any due consideration to the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2000. The Appellate Tribunal, in its findings, opined that the allegations that the appellant’s services were used to transfer funds from the Sandesara Group to certain public officials did not hold true since the averment as to the whether there were any proceeds of crime was not concluded by the Directorate of Enforcement. The properties seized, pertained to the year 2017 whereas in the FIR and complaints it was noted that the transactions took place between 2005 and 2011. The Tribunal opined \u201cthe impugned orders have been passed without any application of mind and in a completely mechanical manner.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em>It was noted by the Tribunal that the Respondents failed to produce any material having relation or link between the appellants and Sterling Biotech Ltd., they also could not provide any proceeds of crime being generated from the transactions. The Petitioners have the option to enforce Section 8(8) of PMLA which provides an alternative statutory remedy to allow the release of property even during trials. The Appellate Tribunal noted that Sections 17 to 21 of PMLA provide that the outer limit up to the date for deciding the application for retention of property within the meaning Section 21(4) is 180 days from the date of seizure of any property or records and this said period cannot be extended. Thus, the Appellate Tribunal reiterated the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of PMLA and stated that if the Adjudicating Authority has a legitimate reason for investigation of the said property, it should pass an order on the same and direct for investigation wherein the assets will be frozen for a period not exceeding 90 days, otherwise, the properties shall be defreezed.<\/p>\n

The Appellate Tribunal ordered that in this instant case, the properties were seized for the purpose of investigation and the 90 days period had elapsed and there were no concrete averments against the appellants or their property hence the properties were to be defreezed.[Kapoor Chand Galbaji Prajapati v. Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi, FPA-PMLA-2231-2334\/DLI\/2018, decided on 02-05-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Appellate Tribunal for Prevention of Money Laundering: A Coram of Justice Manmohan Singh (Chairperson) and G.C Mishra (Member) allowed an appeal against <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":209880,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[34698,35501,3067,2583,35502,35500],"class_list":["post-214833","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-central-bureau-of-investigation","tag-de-freeze-properties","tag-FIR","tag-Investigation","tag-lapse-of-statutorily-prescribed-time","tag-seized-assets"],"yoast_head":"\nPMLA Appellate Tribunal | Properties seized must be defrozen after lapse of statutorily prescribed time period of 90 days | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/18\/pmla-appellate-tribunal-properties-seized-must-be-defrozen-after-lapse-of-statutorily-prescribed-time-period-of-90-days\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"PMLA Appellate Tribunal | Properties seized must be defrozen after lapse of statutorily prescribed time period of 90 days\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Appellate Tribunal for Prevention of Money Laundering: A Coram of Justice Manmohan Singh (Chairperson) and G.C Mishra (Member) allowed an appeal against\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/18\/pmla-appellate-tribunal-properties-seized-must-be-defrozen-after-lapse-of-statutorily-prescribed-time-period-of-90-days\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-05-18T06:00:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/18\/pmla-appellate-tribunal-properties-seized-must-be-defrozen-after-lapse-of-statutorily-prescribed-time-period-of-90-days\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/18\/pmla-appellate-tribunal-properties-seized-must-be-defrozen-after-lapse-of-statutorily-prescribed-time-period-of-90-days\/\",\"name\":\"PMLA Appellate Tribunal | Properties seized must be defrozen after lapse of statutorily prescribed time period of 90 days | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/18\/pmla-appellate-tribunal-properties-seized-must-be-defrozen-after-lapse-of-statutorily-prescribed-time-period-of-90-days\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/18\/pmla-appellate-tribunal-properties-seized-must-be-defrozen-after-lapse-of-statutorily-prescribed-time-period-of-90-days\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-05-18T06:00:59+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/18\/pmla-appellate-tribunal-properties-seized-must-be-defrozen-after-lapse-of-statutorily-prescribed-time-period-of-90-days\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/18\/pmla-appellate-tribunal-properties-seized-must-be-defrozen-after-lapse-of-statutorily-prescribed-time-period-of-90-days\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/18\/pmla-appellate-tribunal-properties-seized-must-be-defrozen-after-lapse-of-statutorily-prescribed-time-period-of-90-days\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/18\/pmla-appellate-tribunal-properties-seized-must-be-defrozen-after-lapse-of-statutorily-prescribed-time-period-of-90-days\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"PMLA Appellate Tribunal | Properties seized must be defrozen after lapse of statutorily prescribed time period of 90 days\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"PMLA Appellate Tribunal | Properties seized must be defrozen after lapse of statutorily prescribed time period of 90 days | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/18\/pmla-appellate-tribunal-properties-seized-must-be-defrozen-after-lapse-of-statutorily-prescribed-time-period-of-90-days\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"PMLA Appellate Tribunal | Properties seized must be defrozen after lapse of statutorily prescribed time period of 90 days","og_description":"Appellate Tribunal for Prevention of Money Laundering: A Coram of Justice Manmohan Singh (Chairperson) and G.C Mishra (Member) allowed an appeal against","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/18\/pmla-appellate-tribunal-properties-seized-must-be-defrozen-after-lapse-of-statutorily-prescribed-time-period-of-90-days\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-05-18T06:00:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/18\/pmla-appellate-tribunal-properties-seized-must-be-defrozen-after-lapse-of-statutorily-prescribed-time-period-of-90-days\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/18\/pmla-appellate-tribunal-properties-seized-must-be-defrozen-after-lapse-of-statutorily-prescribed-time-period-of-90-days\/","name":"PMLA Appellate Tribunal | Properties seized must be defrozen after lapse of statutorily prescribed time period of 90 days | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/18\/pmla-appellate-tribunal-properties-seized-must-be-defrozen-after-lapse-of-statutorily-prescribed-time-period-of-90-days\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/18\/pmla-appellate-tribunal-properties-seized-must-be-defrozen-after-lapse-of-statutorily-prescribed-time-period-of-90-days\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg","datePublished":"2019-05-18T06:00:59+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/18\/pmla-appellate-tribunal-properties-seized-must-be-defrozen-after-lapse-of-statutorily-prescribed-time-period-of-90-days\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/18\/pmla-appellate-tribunal-properties-seized-must-be-defrozen-after-lapse-of-statutorily-prescribed-time-period-of-90-days\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/18\/pmla-appellate-tribunal-properties-seized-must-be-defrozen-after-lapse-of-statutorily-prescribed-time-period-of-90-days\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/18\/pmla-appellate-tribunal-properties-seized-must-be-defrozen-after-lapse-of-statutorily-prescribed-time-period-of-90-days\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"PMLA Appellate Tribunal | Properties seized must be defrozen after lapse of statutorily prescribed time period of 90 days"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":215890,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/19\/pmla-search-seizure-and-retention-of-property-pertaining-to-offence-of-money-laundering-requires-compliance-with-the-provisions-of-pmla-2002\/","url_meta":{"origin":214833,"position":0},"title":"PMLA | Search, seizure and retention of property pertaining to offence of money laundering requires compliance with provisions of PMLA, 2002","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 19, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Appellate Tribunal for SAFEMA, FEMA, PMLA, NDPS & PBPT Act: A Coram of Manmohan Singh (Chairman), J. and G.C. Mishra (Member) set aside the Adjudicating Authority\u2019s order allowing retention of seized property, on the ground of non-compliance of provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. An investigation was initiated\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":214296,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/03\/pmla-appellate-tribunal-no-extension-of-time-for-investigation-when-time-period-mentioned-in-the-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":214833,"position":1},"title":"PMLA Appellate Tribunal |\u00a0 No extension of time for investigation when time period mentioned in the Act","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 3, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Appellate Tribunal for Prevention of Money Laundering: The Coram comprising of Manmohan Singh, J. (Chairperson) and G.C. Mishra (Member) allowed the appeal against the order under Section 26(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.\u00a0 The brief facts of the case are that the police report against G.S. Sawhney\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":213940,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/25\/pmla-authorised-officer-under-pmla-obligated-to-show-that-seized-property-has-nexus-with-money-laundering\/","url_meta":{"origin":214833,"position":2},"title":"PMLA | Authorised officer under PMLA obligated to show that seized property has nexus with money laundering","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 25, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Appellate Tribunal for SAFEMA, FEMA, PMLA, NDPS & PBPT Act: The Coram of Manmohan Singh, J. (Chairman) and G.C. Mishra (Member) allowed the appeal of a person whose property, allegedly pertaining to a money laundering transaction, had been seized. An FIR was registered by the CBI in 2017 under Section\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":216961,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/17\/pmla-appeal-challenging-a-show-cause-notice-passed-by-the-adjudicating-authority-maintainable-if-any-hardship-is-caused-to-a-concerned-party\/","url_meta":{"origin":214833,"position":3},"title":"PMLA | Appeal challenging a show-cause notice passed by Adjudicating Authority, maintainable if any hardship is caused to party concerned","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 17, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Appellate Tribunal for SAFEMA, FEMA, PMLA, NDPS & PBPT Act: Justice Manmohan Singh (Chairman), dismissed an appeal filed by a company challenging a show-cause notice for retention of its property, on the ground that no hardship was caused to the appellant-company by the impugned notice. In the present case, FIR\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/pmla.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":225435,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/10\/sc-refuses-stay-cbi-investigation-into-involvement-of-pmo-officials-in-coal-scam-case-against-jindal-steel\/","url_meta":{"origin":214833,"position":4},"title":"SC refuses stay CBI investigation into involvement of PMO officials in coal scam case against Jindal Steel","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"February 10, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The Court has declined to stay the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the alleged involvement of some PMO officials in the coal scam case against Jindal Steel. The CBI had on January 5 registered another case in the coal block allocation scam, which took\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":243609,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/09\/cestat-condition-of-bank-guarantee-found-exorbitant-tribunal-allows-appeal-reducing-amount-of-the-bank-guarantee\/","url_meta":{"origin":214833,"position":5},"title":"CESTAT | Condition of bank guarantee found exorbitant; Tribunal allows appeal reducing amount of the bank guarantee","author":"Editor","date":"February 9, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Coram of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) allowed an appeal which was filed against Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby; the appellant\u2019s imported seized goods had been provisionally released subject to the execution of bond for\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214833","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=214833"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214833\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/209880"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214833"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214833"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214833"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}