Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.SAM KOSHY, SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
B. Sreenivasa Gandhi, S/o. Sh. B. Narasimha Rao – Appellant
Versus
Adjudicating Authority, Represented By Registrar/Administrative Officer – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeking to quash show-cause notice under pmla. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts: petitioner's involvement in alleged corruption. (Para 3) |
| 3. petitioners argue show-cause notice issued incorrectly. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. court analyzes interpretation of adjudicating authority structure. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. judicial precedent supports single-member jurisdiction. (Para 9 , 11 , 16) |
| 6. writ dismissal due to alternative remedies and statutory framework. (Para 15 , 17) |
| 7. order: miscellaneous petitions stand closed with no costs. (Para 18) |
ORDER :
P.Sam Koshy, J.
1. Heard Mr. Syed Ahmed Saud, learned counsel representing Mr. Mir Mukaram Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Mr. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.1, and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate, appearing for respondent No.2.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the show-cause notice dated 12.09.2025, issued by respondent No.1, under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (
The court upheld the validity of a show-cause notice under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, affirming that the adjudicating authority may operate as a single-member bench without violating sta....
The issuance of a show cause notice under the PMLA does not violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
The judgment established the principle that statutory remedies should be exhausted before seeking extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The adjudicating authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, can function with a single-member bench as per Section 6(5)(b) of the Act, which empowers the Chairperson to constitute ....
The court established that the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA, while exercising powers that may appear judicial, operates primarily as an administrative body, and its composition does not nece....
Under PMLA, Adjudicating Authority neither has power to decide on criminality of offence nor does it have power to impose punishment – Powers under Section 6 can be exercised by an Adjudicating Autho....
Properties acquired before the commission of an alleged offence cannot be attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, and due process must be followed in such proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
