Defective appellate order adjourning the matter. The respondent did not file a reply to the written submission. The Registry was directed to trace the response and the matter was listed for subsequent hearing in February 2017.
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-1255/BNG/2016 Mallasiddappa S Patil … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore … Respondents
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellants : Mr. Chidananda URS, Advocate For the respondent : Ms. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER SHRI B.K. BANSAL : MEMBER
ORDER 09.12.2016
FPA-PMLA-1255/BNG/2016
Reply has not been filed by the respondent. However, a detailed written submission has been filed by the respondent. The counsel for the respondent submits that the written submission may be treated as reply. Ordered accordingly.
Registry will trace out the response to the written submission and
place it on record.
List on 17th February, 2017.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(G.C. Mishra) Member
(B.K. Bansal) Member
New Delhi, 9th December, 2016 ‘s’
FPA-PMLA-1255/BNG/2016
Page 1 of 1
Mallasiddappa S Patil
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore
Manmohan Singh
G.C. Mishra
B.K. Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
21 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
