2025 (1) TMI 152 - SCH - Money Laundering

Maintainability of SLP - Time limitation - HELD THAT - Though on a prima facie view, the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is agreed, in view of the fact that the impugned order has been passed more than two and a half years ago, and much water has flown under the bridge thereafter, it is not required to interfere with the impugned order(s). SLP dismissed.

Summary

The Supreme Court, with Justices M. M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar presiding, addressed the matter involving the petitioner, represented by Mr. Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G., and others, and the respondent, represented by Mr. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv., and others. Despite agreeing "on a prima facie view" with the petitioner's counsel, the Court decided not to interfere with the impugned order due to the passage of time ("more than two and a half years") and subsequent developments. Consequently, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed. The Court emphasized that the impugned judgment(s) "will not be treated as a precedent," while leaving the "question of law... open." Any pending applications were also disposed of.