Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 266 (3.49 seconds)
Documents citing Rohit Tandon vs The Enforcement Directorate on 10 November, 2017

Amit Agarwal @ Vicky Bhalotia vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 8 October, 2025

157. It needs to refer herein that the three Judge Bench the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement" (supra) held that the statements of witnesses recorded by Prosecution - ED are admissible in evidence in view of Section 50. Such statements may make out a formidable case about the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence -98- BBl 2025:JHHC:31170 of money laundering. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 130 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Alamgir Alam S/O Late Sanaul Haque vs The Directorate Of Enforcement on 11 July, 2025

96. The three Judge Bench the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) held that the statements of witnesses recorded by Prosecution - ED are admissible in evidence in view of Section 50. Such statements may make out a formidable case about the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence of money laundering. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 96 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Sajjan Kumar vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 13 June, 2022

36. At this stage, this Court deems it apposite to refer to the observation made in Rohit Tandon (Supra), where while relying on its earlier decision in Ranjitsin Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra and Another (2005) 5 SCC 294 and State of Maharashtra vs. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty (2012) 10 SCC 561, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court outlined the parameters for adjudication of bail application in terms of Section 45(1)(ii) PMLA and held as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 2 - C D Singh - Full Document

Md. Jahangir Alam vs Directorate Of Enforcement ... on 19 November, 2025

94. The three Judge Bench the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) held that the statements of witnesses recorded by Prosecution - ED are admissible in evidence in view of Section 50. Such statements may make out a formidable case about the involvement of the accused in the 72 2025:JHHC:34660 commission of the offence of money laundering. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 98 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Mrs. Pinki Basu Mukherjee vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 10 September, 2025

97. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC 46, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI and Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI has consistently held that economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies and cross-border ramifications are a class apart, and bail cannot be granted mechanically or on sympathetic grounds.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Sanjeev Kumar Lal vs Directorate Of Enforcement ... on 13 August, 2025

93. The three Judge Bench the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) held that the statements of witnesses recorded by Prosecution - ED are admissible in evidence in view of Section 50. Such statements may make out a formidable case about the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence of 62 2025:JHHC:23713 money laundering. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Abbas Ansari vs Directorate Of Enforcement, Allahabad on 9 May, 2024

In Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC 46, a three Judge Bench has categorically observed that the statements of witnesses/accused are admissible in evidence in view of Section 50 of the said Act and such statements may make out a formidable case about the involvement of the accused in the commission of a serious offence of money laundering.
Allahabad High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Shiva Kumar Deora @ Shiva Ratan Deora vs Union Of India on 12 November, 2025

132. It needs to refer herein that the three Judge Bench the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement" (supra) held that the statements of witnesses recorded by Prosecution - ED are admissible in evidence in view of Section 50. Such statements may make out a formidable case about the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence 95 2025:JHHC:33869 of money laundering. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 130 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Manoj Kumar Tyagi vs Directorate Of Enforcement (Lko. Zonal ... on 26 April, 2023

21. The aforesaid prima facie satisfaction finds support by the statement of PW-1 recorded by the trial court, which witness has categorically stated that he does not know the applicant and he has not made any transaction with the applicant, as has been held in Rohit Tandon (supra), this Court is not required to record the finding of innocence for granting bail. The facts discussed above clearly makes out a prima facie satisfaction for grant of bail to the applicant.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Alamgir Alam S/O Late Sanaul Haque vs The Directorate Of Enforcement on 11 July, 2025

96. The three Judge Bench the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) held that the statements of witnesses recorded by Prosecution - ED are admissible in evidence in view of Section 50. Such statements may make out a formidable case about the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence of money laundering. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 96 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next