Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.98 seconds)
Documents citing Sri. Sachin Narayan vs The Income Tax Department on 29 August, 2019

Mr. Madhu Koneru vs The Director Of Enforcement on 2 June, 2021

The judgments relied upon by the respondent in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others4; Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement5; M/s. V.G.N.Developers v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement6; Radha Mohan Lakhotia v. Deputy Director, P.M.L.A., Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance7; Sachin Narayan v. Income Tax Department and another8 and Babulal Verma v. Enforcement Directorate9 are not applicable to the present case and are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
Telangana High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 2 - G S Devi - Full Document

Sri Laxman S/O Sri Jaranappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 February, 2022

9. Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar learned Government Advocate would refer to the judgement delivered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Sri. Sachin Narayan vs. The Income Tax Department and Others (Writ Appeal No.3611/201 and connected matters decided on 17.09.2019) and would submit that the case is squarely covered in terms of the said judgement.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S G Pandit - Full Document

Ahsan Ahmad Mirza And Others vs Enforcement Directorate & Another on 15 October, 2019

28 In the recent case, the High Court of Karnataka was confronted with the similar issue. Justice Aravind Kumar, who heard the matter i.e Writ Petition No. 5299/2019 titled Sri Sachin Narayan vs The Income Tax 17 Department and another, has extensively deliberated on the issue in its judgment, pronounced on 29th August, 2019.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 32 - Cited by 3 - S Kumar - Full Document

Sri Abrar Kazi vs State Of Karnataka on 10 January, 2022

13. Sri Dhyan Chinnappa argued that section 120B of IPC is an independent offence and therefore notwithstanding the fact that ingredients for section 420 IPC can be said to be not there for argument sake, still the accused can be prosecuted for offence under 120B and in this regard he has placed reliance on the judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of Sachin Narayan vs Income Tax Department and Another (W.P.5299/2019 and connected writ petitions). There is no second word with regard to his argument that section 120B is an independent offence but, to invoke this offence of conspiracy, as has been argued by Sri Hashmath Pasha, the allegations found in the charge sheet must constitute an offence in connection with which conspiracy is alleged. As discussed above, the allegations found in the charge sheet do not constitute an offence under section 420 IPC and therefore offence under section 120B cannot be :: 22 ::
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ed vs . Ashutosh Verma & Anr. Page No. 1 Of 91 on 20 April, 2023

On the point that Sec.120B IPC is a stand alone offence, Ld. Spl. PP placed reliance on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Sachin Narayan & Ors vs. Income Tax Department & Ors, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 1726 which was also referred to and relied upon by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in Ahsan Ahmad Mirza & Ors vs. Enforcement Directorate & Anr, WP(C) no. 2780/2019 decided on 15.10.2019 wherein it was observed that it is beyond the pale of any doubt that offence of criminal conspiracy punishable u/s 120B IPC is a stand alone offence and figures on top of Part A of the Schedule of PMLA. It was further observed that this being the situation, it is difficult to accept the plea that unless the offence of criminal conspiracy is committed in conjunction with a scheduled offence, it cannot be taken to be a scheduled offence for the purpose of Sec. 3 r/w Sec. 2(1)(u) of PMLA.
Delhi District Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Vinod Ramnani vs Station House Officer on 13 August, 2020

(b) A Co-ordinate Bench of this court having extensively examined the scheme of the Act in W.P.No.5299/2019 between Sri. Sachin Narayan Vs. The Income Tax Department and others, decided on 29.08.2019, held that: the proceedings under PML Act are independent, separate, distinct and different from the 23 proceedings initiated for scheduled offences by other law enforcement agencies; PML Act is a stand alone enactment which differentiates between scheduled offences and money laundering offences; if the investigation for the predicate offence is conducted by the authorities empowered under the enactments and if for any reason, the same is closed/dropped, the proceedings under the Act in other stream would not, thereby, automatically wither away, the offence of money laundering u/s 3 of the Act being an independent offence; this fairly happens to be the unanimous view of several High Courts in the country vide:
Karnataka High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 2 - K S Dixit - Full Document

Mr. Bhavesh Bafna vs State Of Karnataka on 13 June, 2022

13. Sri Dhyan Chinnappa argued that section 120B of IPC is an independent off ence and theref ore notwi thstanding the f act that ingredients f or sec tion 7 420 IPC can be said to be not there f or argument sake, still the accused can be prosecuted f or off ence under 120B and in this regard he has placed reliance on the judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this cour t in the case of Sachin Narayan vs Income Tax Department and Another (W.P.5299/2019 and connected writ petitions). There is no second word wi th regard to his argument that section 120B is an independent off ence but, to invoke this off ence of conspiracy, as has been argued by Sri Hashmath Pasha, the allegations f ound in the charge sheet must consti tute an off ence in connection wi th which conspiracy is alleged. As discussed above, the allegations f ound in the charge sheet do not constitute an offence under secti on 420 IPC and theref ore off ence under section 120B cannot be invoked in the f acts and circumstances. Theref ore the argument of Sri Dhyan Chinnappa cannot be accepted.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Sri Sathish vs State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2022

13. Sri Dhyan Chinn app a argued that section 120B of IPC is an independent off ence and theref ore notwiths tanding the f act th at ingredien ts f or sec tion 420 IPC can be said to be not there f or argu ment sake, still the accused c an be prosecuted f or off ence under 120B and in th is reg ard he has placed reliance on the judg ment of a co-ordin ate bench of th is cour t in the case of Sachin Narayan vs Income Tax Department and Another (W.P.5299/2019 and connected writ petitions). T here is no second word with reg ard to his argu ment th at section 120B is an independent off ence bu t, to in voke this off ence of conspir acy, as has been argued by Sri H ash math Pash a, the allegations f ound in the charge sheet must constitu te an off ence in connection with wh ich conspir acy is alleged. As discussed above, the allegations f ound in the charge sheet do not cons titu te an offence under section 420 IPC and theref ore off ence under section 120B c annot be invoked in the f acts and circu ms tances. T heref ore the argu ment of Sri Dhyan Ch innapp a c annot be accepted.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document
1   2 Next