Supreme Court of India Judgements

46610 Judgements hosted as on 29/08/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Prevention of Money Laundering

I P C Prevention of Money Laundering

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 447, 504, 506, 341, 323 and 34 — Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Sections 3, 4 and 45 ——The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant, emphasizing that bail is the rule and jail is the exception — The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case of money laundering against the appellant

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 637 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PREM PRAKASH — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…

Prevention of Money Laundering

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 4, 19 and 44 (1)(b) – The appellant, accused of complaints under Section 44(1)(b) of the Act, was denied anticipatory bail – They were not arrested post-ECIR registration until the Special Court took cognizance under the PMLA – The appellants argue that the power to arrest should not be exercised post-cognizance, and if an accused appears after summons, there’s no reason for arrest or custody – They also contend that provisions of the CrPC apply to proceedings before the Special Court – The respondent asserts that once an accused appears before the Special Court, they are deemed in its custody and must apply for bail under Section 439 of the CrPC – The Court granted leave to appeal and protected the appellants from arrest through interim orders – The Court examined the applicability of CrPC provisions to PMLA proceedings and the discretion of the Special Court in issuing summons or warrants – The Court concluded that the issuance of summons is to secure the accused’s presence, not custody – If the accused defies the summons, a bailable warrant may be issued.

Jul 5, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 434 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TARSEM LAL — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT JALANDHAR ZONAL OFFICE — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal…

Constitution Prevention of Money Laundering

HELD money laundering poses a serious threat not only to the financial systems of the countries but also to their integrity and sovereignty. Hence any lenient view in dealing with such offences would be a travesty of justice – that non-production of the relevant documents especially the documents in respect of which the relief is sought, along with the SLPs could be the sole ground for rejection of the SLPs at the outset.

Apr 30, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANOOP BARTARIA AND ETC. — Appellant Vs. DY. DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi,…

You missed

Consumer

The flat was purchased for the personal use of one of its directors and his family — The appellant created confusion by double allotment of the flat and unfairly forfeited the deposited amount —The NCDRC ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the appellant to refund the deposited amount with interest — The Supreme Court upheld this decision —The respondent was considered a consumer as the flat was for personal use — The appellant’s actions were deemed deficient and unfair due to the double allotment and premature cancellation —

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Anticipatory bail — Cancellation of — The appellant had his anticipatory bail cancelled without notice due to failure to plant saplings —Whether the cancellation of anticipatory bail without notice was justified The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting additional time to plant 500 trees —The anticipatory bail granted to is revived, and he must deposit the cost of saplings with the Forest authorities.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420 and 34 — Nature of Offence —The Court’s decision to grant bail in a case involving Sections 420 and 34 IPC indicates that while these sections pertain to serious offenses (cheating and criminal conspiracy, respectively), bail may still be granted if the circumstances of the case, such as the nature of the transaction and the relationship between the parties, warrant it.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) — PPA between Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, and the Hirehalli Solar Power Project LLP — The respondent sought an extension of the scheduled commissioning date (SCD) under the force majeure clause of the PPA due to delays in obtaining necessary approvals and licenses —The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) rejected the force majeure claim, but the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) reversed the decision, finding that the delay was not attributable to the respondent and that the force majeure clause was applicable — The Supreme Court agreed with the APTEL’s findings and dismissed the appeals — The court also rejected the appellant’s contention that the APTEL’s direction to pay late payment surcharge to the respondent was unjustified, as it was rooted in the PPA and in furtherance of the intention of the parties.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw