Disposed

FPA-PMLA-1484/AHD/2016 of Shri Dharmendra G. Gandhi HUF v/s

ATFP29 Nov 2016FPA-PMLA-1484/AHD/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant raised objections regarding condonation of delay and sought status quo of attached properties. Tribunal directed notice to respondent for delay application and maintained status quo pending main appeal hearing scheduled for March 21, 2017.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued for condonation of delay application reply; status quo maintained on attached properties; main appeal listed for March 21, 2017.

FPA-PMLA-1484/AHD/2016 of Shri Dharmendra G. Gandhi HUF v/s — ATFP (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-2920/AHD/2016 (COD) MP-PMLA-2921/AHD/2016 (Stay) MP-PMLA-2827/AHD/2016 (COD)

¶3

¶4

FPA-PMLA-1484/AHD/2016

¶5

Shri Dharmendra G. Gandhi HUF … Appellant/Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmedabad … Respondent

¶8

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶9

For the appellant : Shri N.M. Kapadia, Advocate For the respondent : Shri S.A. Saud, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI ANAND KISHORE : MEMBER

¶10

ORDER 29.11.2016

¶11

FPA-PMLA-1484/AHD/2016 & MP-PMLA-2827/AHD/2016 (COD)

¶12

The appellant has filed the appeal against the order dated 30^th October, 2014. Along with the appeal the appellant has also filed an application for condonation of delay. The reasons are explained in the application. Since there is a long delay on the part of the appellant, the hearing in the application at the first instance is necessary.

¶13

Issue notice only in the application for condonation of delay. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent accepts the same and seeks time to file the reply. Reply be filed within six weeks with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder four weeks thereafter. List this application for consideration on 21^st March, 2017.

¶14

FPA-PMLA-1484/AHD/2016

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

As far as the main appeal is concerned, the same shall be considered after the outcome of the application for condonation of delay.

¶17

The learned counsel for the appellant is pressing for interim order. The learned counsel for the respondent states that symbolic possession may have been taken. He is not sure about it. After small hearing we are of the view that at this stage it would be appropriate that the status quo shall be maintained by both the parties in relation to the attached properties. The respondent shall not sell, alienate or dispose the said properties directly or indirectly.

¶18

List the appeal also on 21^st March, 2017.

¶19

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶20

(Anand Kishore) Member

¶21

New Delhi, 29^th November, 2016

¶22

‘R’

¶23

FPA-PMLA-1484/AHD/2016

¶24

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-1484/AHD/2016 of Shri Dharmendra G. Gandhi HUF v/s

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1484/AHD/2016 of Shri Dharmendra G. Gandhi HUF v/s

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases