There was an appearance of the appellant in an appeal filed under the Preventive Detention provisions. Appeal was called for hearing but no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. Registry was directed to send order to the appellant and her counsel.
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, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI
FPA-PMLA-1073/DLI/2015 Komal Jain … Appellant Versus
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
| For the appellant | : None |
|---|---|
| For the respondent |
: Shri Nitesh Rana, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Shilpi Satyapriya, Advocate |
| CORAM | |
| JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH | : CHAIRMAN |
| SHRI G.C. MISHRA | : MEMBER |
| SHRI B.K. BANSAL | : MEMBER |
ORDER
01.12.2016
FPA-PMLA-1073/DLI/2015
The matter was taken up on second call. No one appears on behalf
of the appellant. Even the rejoinder has not been filed. The right to file
the rejoinder is closed. List for final arguments on 22nd February, 2017.
Since no one appears on behalf of the appellant, copy of the order
be sent to the appellant as well as her counsel by the Registry by speed post.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(G.C. Mishra) Member
(B.K. Bansal) Member
New Delhi,
1st December, 2016 ‘R’
FPA-PMLA-1073/DLI/2015
Page 1 of 1
Komal Jain
Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi
Manmohan Singh
G.C. Mishra
B.K. Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
