Interim adjournment order in an appeal under Section 26 of PMLA. Noting the appellant's lack of documentary evidence and respondent's request for time, the court issued notices to both parties and listed the matter for January 10, 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-1471/CHN/2016
Smt. C. Vijaya … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent
… Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellant : Shri Vikas Mehta, Advocate Shri Karandeep Khanna, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Shaijan C. George, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI ANAND KISHORE : MEMBER
ORDER 03.11.2016
FPA-PMLA-1471/CHN/2016
The appellant has filed the appeal under section 26 of PMLA against the order dated 1st August, 2016 in O.C no. 581/2016. The counsel for the appellant has pointed out that in para no. 6 of the impugned order it was observed that there is no documentary evidence which has been provided. Issue notice to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 accepts the notice and seeks time to file the reply. Let the reply be filed within six weeks with an advance copy to the counsel for the appellant. Notice be issued to respondent no. 2 on taking the necessary steps within 10 days from today.
List on 10th January, 2017.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(Anand Kishore)
Member
New Delhi, 3rd November, 2016 ‘d’ FPA-PMLA-1471/CHN/2016
Page 1 of 1
Smt. C. Vijaya
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai
Manmohan Singh
Anand Kishore
As recorded by the court registry
16 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
