Every PMLA offence has two dimensions - predicate offence and laundering. Money laundering is a separate offence independent from the predicate/scheduled offence, Mehta.
Many of the official records that the ED receives are from other countries as India is apart of a global statutory network against money laundering, Mehta
Statute states that there must be a reason to believe based on matetial in possession and such reasons to be recorded by the adjudicating authority in cases of money laundering, Mehta
The threshold before arresting is much higher as under PMLA than under IPC. Only specified officers can make the arrest after reasons are recorded in writing. All ingredients of Article 20 are covered, Mehta
-Only the Director authorised can arrest
-based on reasons to believe an offence is committed
-reasons to be recorded in writing
-based on material in possession
-evidence submitted to adjudicating authority in sealed cover
The evidence should be kept with an independent body and the evidence can be supplied to the accused only after chargesheet is filed, Mehta
The material in possession is sacrosanct and I cannot use it arbitrarily till chargesheet is filed and cannot serve to the other side till then according to the statue, Mehta
It's not done for "humiliation, humiliation, humiliation" as Mr Singhvi said yesterday but only for prevention, prevention, prevention with capital P, Mehta
Overseas banks have given some specific inputs regarding properties, companies etc. We have issued letters rogatory (LR), we have got some, we are awaiting some, Mehta
I request the court to grant my material an exclusion from the accused at this stage of investigation. Evidence copy cannot be shared with the accused before filing chargesheet, Mehta
Justice Banumathi reminds Mehta that case made on P Chidambaram's behalf was inky that the Court should not be presented with evidence that has not been used to confront the accused.
Mehta hands over a substantially large compilation of case laws to the Court and is reading out precedents to support his argument against disclosure of evidence to the accused ahead of filing of a chargesheet.
SG Tushar Mehta also cites the Supreme Court's judgment in the #BhimaKoregaon case on a petition filed by Romila Thapar and Ors. Mehta points out that in that case too, the case diary was places before the Court.
Delhi High Court stays further investigation and proceedings in FIR lodged against Tamil Nadu MLA and Secretary of Student Wing Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), C.V.M.P. Ezhilarasan, for organising a protest challenging proposed UGC laws, at Jantar Mantar on February 6.
The matter was listed before Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani.
Senior Amit Anand Tiwari appeared for the politician. He stated that the perusal of the FIR would itself show that there is no allegation that the peaceful protest held by the petitioner and his associates caused any obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk.
Supreme Court resumes hearing the plea against Ladakh-based activist Sonam Wangchuk’s detention under the NSA.
Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale
Notably, Wangchuk’s detention was revoked by the Centre on March 14.
@Wangchuk66
While revoking Wangchuk’s detention earlier this month, the Centre said the decision was taken after considering the need to foster “an environment of peace, stability, and mutual trust” in Ladakh.
Supreme Court Bar Association flags off its first National Conference on the theme “reimagining judicial governance: strengthening institutions for democratic justice”.
Justice Mehta: if a true picture is provided to litigants by lawyers at the first stage the chances of mediation succeeding would increase manifold.
Justice Mehta: But the most stumbling roadblock is the government. The experience in the national Lok Adalats where we hold pre-litigation mediation sessions is sad to say the least. There is hardly a single department of this government which comes forward with a positive response.
The person who is an accused is praying for protection? You are a suspected accused. You are trying to sensationalise the issue: Uttarakhand High Court to gym owner ‘Mohammad’ Deepak Kumar
The Court is hearing a plea filed by Kumar seeking quashing of an FIR agains him.
I have been receiving consistent threats: Kumar’s counsel
You are investigation: Court
That is a different thing: Counsel
[Day 2]: A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court to resume hearing reference on the interpretation of “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, in the State of UP v. Jai Bir Singh batch of cases
#SupremeCourt
A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court begins hearing reference on the interpretation of “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, in the State of UP v. Jai Bir Singh batch of cases
#SupremeCourt
Sr Adv CU Singh: There are two notifications ... Now the old industrial disputes act has been repealed.
Sr Adv Indira Jaising: Any judgment rendered by the court in interpretation of the old law will impact the new law. One side seeks reconsideration of Bangalore water supply and one side says no such reconsideration needed.
CJI: While taking a view on Bangalore water supply .. we can give a word of caution that the interpretation is for the law which used to exist
Jaising: There is an unavoidable overlap. All conclusions should be without prejudice.
AG R Venkataramani: so whether a challenge to the new law can lie when there is no such challenge before this court
AG: I have placed my written submissions and compilations for the Court’s consideration; I will be referring in particular to Volumes 4B and 5B. The principal issue, as framed, is whether an undertaking or enterprise falls within the definition of “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and what the correct legal position is. A second, distinct issue arises from the 1982 Amendment, particularly in the context of social welfare activities and governmental functions, and whether such activities fall within the expression “enterprise.” This in turn raises the question of what constitutes a “sovereign function” of the State and whether such functions are excluded from the ambit of Section 2(j). To address this, it is necessary to go back to the earlier reference order and the line of judgments beginning with Bangalore Water Supply.