This appeal sought time to file a show cause notice regarding forfeited property. The Tribunal allowed parties to submit written synopses but did not dispose of the merits.
Allowed parties to file written synopsis on or before the next date; allowed time to file the show cause notice.
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 FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
NEW DELHI
(Under Section 12 of SAFEMA, 1976 as Amended by Finance Act, 2016)
FPA-19/BOM/2015
Varsha Rajnikant Shah … Appellant/Applicant
Versus
The Competent Authority, Mumbai … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellant : Shri Akshay Anand, Advocate
For the respondent : Shri Siddhartha Majumdar, Inspecting Officer
CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA : MEMBER SHRI ANAND KISHORE : MEMBER
ORDER
11.04.2017
FPA-19/BOM/2015
Pleadings are complete. After filing the appeal the appellant states that the show cause notice has not been filed by him which is relevant for the consideration of the appeal. He seeks some time to file the same.
As desired by both the parties, they are allowed to file the written
synopsis on or before the next date.
List on 29th August, 2017.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(Kaushal Srivastava) Member
(Anand Kishore) Member
New Delhi, 11th April, 2017
‘d’
FPA-19/BOM/2015
Page 1 of 1
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Varsha Rajnikant Shah
The Competent Authority, Mumbai
Manmohan Singh
Kaushal Srivastava
Anand Kishore
As recorded by the court registry
11 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
