Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.31 seconds)Section 8 in The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Raza Textiles Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer, Rampur on 22 September, 1972
16. Thus, the petitioners argue, the impugned show
cause notice and order of provisional attachment are
without jurisdiction. Hence, the writ court can
entertain a challenge to both under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, as no authority can confer
jurisdiction on itself by deciding a jurisdictional fact
wrongly, as held in Raza Textiles Ltd. V. Income Tax
Officer, Rampur, reported at (1973) 1 SCC 633.
Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998
27. Taking first things first, as settled by the Supreme
Court in several cases, including the ones cited by
counsel in the present case, a patent jurisdictional
error can be interfered with by this court even if an
alternative remedy is available. Whirlpool's case has
summed up the limited windows for such
interference.
Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal on 8 August, 2013
Even as per Chhabil Das's case, as
rightly argued by the petitioners, where a statutory
authority has failed to act in accordance with the
statute in question or without jurisdiction, the same
11
comprises an exception to the alternative remedy
bar. The distinction sought to be drawn in this
regard by learned counsel for the ED between an
"alternative" remedy and a "statutory" remedy is
artificial and not borne out by any of the cited
judgments. Often, the two terms are
interchangeable. Whereas alternative remedy is a
genus, statutory remedy is one of the species
thereunder. Therefore, the test for interference in the
present case is whether any patent jurisdictional
contravention of the respondents has been
established prima facie by the petitioners.
Signature Not Verified Digitally ... vs Mr. Puneet Saini, Adv. For Petitioner In ... on 31 August, 2022
VI. Abhay Nigam Vs. Union of India [AIR OnLine
2021 MP 433] - Ref. Para 5;
Gautam Khaitan & Anr. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 4 February, 2015
22. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2-ED next
contends that under the PMLA, attachment of third-
party property is also permissible. For such
9
proposition, learned counsel relies on Vijay Madanlal
(supra) of the Supreme Court, Radha Mohan
Lakhotia & Ors. v. Deputy Director, PMLA, Directorate
of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance [2010 (6) AIR Bom
R 612], of a Division Bench of the Bombay High
Court and Gautam Khaitan & Anr. V. Union of India
[2015 CRL.L.J.2112], passed by a learned Single
Judge of the Delhi High Court.
The Deputy Director Directorate Of ... vs Axis Bank & Ors on 2 April, 2019
In support of the
said argument, learned counsel relies on paragraphs
68 and 69 of Vijay Madanlal (supra), The Deputy
Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi v. Axis
Bank & Ors. and Prakash Industries Ltd. & Anr. V.
Directorate of Enforcement, both judgments of
learned Single Judges of the Delhi High Court.
M/S Prakash Industries Ltd. & Anr. vs Directorate Of Enforecement on 19 July, 2022
43. The first of the two decisions, that is, the Axis Bank
case, has also been relied on in the second, that is,
the Prakash Industries case. The Court proceeds to
highlight the part of the inclusive definition of
"proceeds of crime" in Section 2 (1) (u) of the PMLA
which includes "the value of any such property" to
draw a distinction between "tainted" and "untainted"
or "deemed tainted" property. On such logic, it is
held that even untainted property which may have
been acquired "by the suspect legitimately without
any connection with criminal activity or its result".