FPA-11/BOM/2014 of Bhanumati Kapadia v/s The Competent Authority, Mumbai
Case brief
What is this about?
Astay application was adjourned for a date when the main counsel in the Supreme Court becomes available.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY NEW DELHI
MP-52-BOM/2014 (Stay) FPA-11/BOM/2014
Bhanumati Kapadia … Appellant/Applicant
Versus
The Competent Authority, Mumbai
… Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellant : Shri Sumeet Anand, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Siddhartha Majumdar, Inspecting Officer CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA : MEMBER SHRI ANAND KISHORE : MEMBER
ORDER 15.11.2016
MP-52-BOM/2014 (Stay) & FPA-11/BOM/2014
The learned cousnel appearing on behalf of the appellant states that
the main counsel who has to argue the matter is busy in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel seeks time under these circumstances. The request is not opposed by the respodnent. In the interest of justice, list this matter on 17th January, 2017.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Bhanumati Kapadia
- respondent
The Competent Authority, Mumbai
Coram
Manmohan Singh
All orders in this case
12 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court