Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (0.50 seconds)
Abdullah Ali Balsharaf & Anr vs Directorate Of Enforcement & Ors on 9 January, 2019 cites

Paresha G. Shah vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 15 June, 2015

71. With much respect to the view of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court, this Court is unable to agree with the view as expressed in Paresha G. Shah v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (supra). An order of freezing under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. cannot be considered to be in aid of order of provisional attachment passed under Section 5(1) of the PMLA or an order of seizure and/or freezing of property under Section 17(1A) of the PMLA. Both the orders under Section 5(1) and under Section 17 of the PMLA are orders of interim nature and are operative for a limited period till pending adjudication under Section 8 of the Act and further confiscation of the property. Orders of freezing of property passed under section 17(1A) of the PMLA or provisional attachment are by their nature provisional orders that require confirmation. Such powers are exercised in emergent situations warranting passing such orders. The contention that an order of provisional freezing is in aid of provisional attachment is plainly unpersuasive.
Gujarat High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 9 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document
1   2 3 Next