Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.09 seconds)
Arun Suri vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 16 February, 2026 cites

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union Of India on 27 July, 2022

10. While interpreting the word "value thereof", the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), clarified that the definition of "proceeds of crime" is wide enough to not only refer to the property derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, but also of the value of any such property. If the property is taken or held outside the country, even in such a case, the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad can be proceeded with.
Supreme Court of India Cites 580 - Cited by 293 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Sri. H M Malthesh vs The Director Of Enforcement on 18 December, 2020

7. It has been argued that subject property could not have been attached as "value thereof" in terms of Section 2(1) (u) of PMLA, 2002, since the said property was never actually purchased by the appellant himself. The right of the appellant in the subject property has flown through his deceased father and thus, it was wholly impermissible to rely upon Section 2(1) (u) of PMLA to attach the said property. Placing reliance on judgment of Karnataka High Court in H.M. Malthesh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, dated 18th December 2020 in Criminal Petition No. 584 of 2018, it is argued that as per Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA, only these tainted properties, which are obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to scheduled offence, can be termed as "proceeds of crime", Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALIMisc. Appeal (PMLA) 13/2026 Page 2 of 5 PRUTHI Signing Date:18.02.2026 14:52 which is not the situation in the present case, as the subject property was not purchased by the appellant's money but was rather purchased by his father from his own money.
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - J M Cunha - Full Document
1