Allowed

FPA-PMLA-1313/AHD/2016 of Aman Sachdeva v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmedabad

ATFP5 Oct 2016FPA-PMLA-1313/AHD/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant sought condonation of a 53-day delay in filing an appeal under the PMLA due to change of counsel and lost office file. Tribunal allowed condonation subject to Rs. 10,000 cost. Respondent notice issued.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 53 days in filing the appeal subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as cost to the respondent.

FPA-PMLA-1313/AHD/2016 of Aman Sachdeva v/s The Deputy Director… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2016)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-2574/AHD/2016 (COD)

¶3

¶4

FPA-PMLA-1313/AHD/2016

¶5

Aman Sachdeva Versus

¶6

… Appellant/Applicant

¶7

The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmedabad

¶8

… Respondent

¶9

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶10

For the appellant	: Ms. Manali Singhal, Advocate
For the respondent	: Shri Atul Tripathi, Advocate
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	: CHAIRMAN
SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA	: MEMBER
SHRI ANAND KISHORE	: MEMBER

¶11

ORDER 05.10.2016

¶12

MP-PMLA-2574/AHD/2016 (COD)

¶13

Reply has not been filed by the respondent. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent is opposing the prayer of this Tribunal for condonation of delay of 53 days in filing the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has made her submission in the application. She has also referred to the order dated 20^th October, 2015 passed by High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad and submits that on merits appellant has a good case. As far as the present application is concerned it is stated in para 2 of the application that the said delay has happened due to the change of the counsel of the appellant. The impugned order was received on 15^th February, 2016 thereafter the appellant sent copy of the same to previous counsel who did not make FPA-PMLA-1313/AHD/2016 Page 1 of 2

¶14

any efforts to file appeal. Thereafter the appellant was constrained to change his counsel. The impugned order was misplaced in the office of the earlier counsel, the new counsel had to apply for a fresh certified copy of the order which was received on 19^th May, 2016.

¶15

We are of the view that sufficient cause has been made in the application, however it also a matter of fact that the delay is more than fifty days. Thus, the delay in filling the appeal is condoned subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- paid to the respondent.

¶16

FPA-PMLA-1313/AHD/2016

¶17

Issue notice of the appeal to the respondent. Mr. Atul Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice and seeks time to file the reply. Let the reply be filed within six weeks with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the appellant who may file rejoinder four weeks thereafter.

¶18

List on 7^th February, 2017.

¶19

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶20

(Kaushal Srivastava)

¶21

Member

¶22

(Anand Kishore) Member

¶23

New Delhi, 5^th October, 2016

¶24

‘R’

¶25

FPA-PMLA-1313/AHD/2016

¶26

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-1313/AHD/2016 of Aman Sachdeva v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmedabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1313/AHD/2016 of Aman Sachdeva v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmedabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases