Advertisement
“We are worried about it (impact of the judgement),” a bench of Justices R F Nariman and Sanjay Kishan Kaul observed, after Attorney General K K Venugopal submitted that the high court’s March 13 order would have huge repercussions in other cases.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Reddy and others, contended that the properties cannot be attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, while applying the law retrospectively.
“All the transactions took place prior to 2009 and money was routed through banks. My case cannot be resuscitated by applying the anti-laundering law,” he said.
Related Articles
Advertisement