RAJESH SINGH DEBAPRIYA GHOSH vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. — FMA/530/2026
Case under No Act Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 19th May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0157272026
Filing Number
MAT/626/2026
Filing Date
31-Mar-2026
Registration No
FMA/530/2026
Registration Date
01-Apr-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Justice Shampa Sarkar , Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Shampa Sarkar , Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )
Sub-Category
Residuary ( 26 )
Judicial Branch
FIRST MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL (FMA) SECTION
Decision Date
19-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Last updated 29-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RAJESH SINGH DEBAPRIYA GHOSH
Respondent(s)
-
1.UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
19-May-2026
Hon'ble Justice Shampa Sarkar,hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar GuptaView PDF
-
19-May-2026
Hon'ble Justice Shampa Sarkar,hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar GuptaView PDF
-
19-May-2026
Hon'ble Justice Shampa Sarkar,hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar GuptaView PDF
Case Summary: FMA 530/2026 The appellate court dismissed Rajesh Singh's appeal challenging a show cause notice issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The lower court had not quashed the notice but instead directed the Adjudicating Authority to determine whether requested documents were relied upon and, if unserved, supply them to the appellant within two weeks, with opportunity for supplementary reply. The appellate court upheld this approach, finding it protected fair hearing rights, and held that writ courts should not quash show cause notices at the preliminary stage—all legal challenges remain available before the appellate tribunal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
07-Apr-2026
For Admission
Hon'ble Justice Shampa Sarkar , Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
-
31-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. FMA/530/2026
Case Summary: FMA 530/2026 The appellate court dismissed Rajesh Singh's appeal challenging a show cause notice issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The lower court had not quashed the notice but instead directed the Adjudicating Authority to determine whether requested documents were relied upon and, if unserved, supply them to the appellant within two weeks, with opportunity for supplementary reply. The appellate court upheld this approach, finding it protected fair hearing rights, and held that writ courts should not quash show cause notices at the preliminary stage—all legal challenges remain available before the appellate tribunal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts