STARTUP LEGAL5 Sept 2026
Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law
A Karnataka High Court case has reinforced that the Enforcement Directorate cannot quietly drag you into a PMLA case. Following a Supreme Court ruling, courts must give the accused a hearing before taking cognizance of an ED complaint. If that procedure is skipped, proceedings can be challenged at the threshold. This protects fairness in money-laundering cases.
Key Statutory Highlights
- ED made the petitioner, a land acquisition officer, accused No.29 even though he was not accused in the predicate offence.
- The Supreme Court's Kushal Kumar Agarwal ruling says ED complaints are covered by BNSS Section 223, so the accused must get a hearing before cognizance.
- The Karnataka High Court observed the special court skipped this hearing procedure for both the first and supplementary complaints.
Actionable Advice for Taxpayers / Founders:If you face an ED complaint, ask your lawyer to verify whether the court gave you a hearing before taking cognizance; if not, challenge the proceedings early.
Statutory Disclaimer: TaxQue Shorts are AI-assisted editorial briefs for compliance awareness. This brief has not passed every source check; confirm the original notification before acting. This does not constitute formal legal or CA counsel.
TaxQue News Desk
Share: