Departmental appellate order dated 27.03.2017 directed re-notification of FPA-44/MUM/2017 pursuant to the order in FPA-21/MUM/2014 under Section 12 of SAFEMA, 1976, maintaining prior status quo.
Directed re-notification of the matter on 28th April, 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 FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY NEW DELHI
(Under Section 12 of SAFEMA, 1976 as Amended by Finance Act, 2016)
FPA-44/MUM/2017 Jaya Anoopchand Shah … Applicant/Appellant Versus The Competent Authority, Mumbai … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
| For the appellant | : Shri Kiran Jain, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For the respondent | : Shri Stanly Joseph, I.O. |
| CORAM | |
| JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH | : CHAIRMAN |
| SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA | : MEMBER |
| SHRI ANAND KISHORE | : MEMBER |
ORDER
27.03.2017
FPA-44/MUM/2017
In view of the order passed in FPA-21/MUM/2014, re-notify the matter on 28th April, 2017.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(Kaushal Srivastava) Member
(Anand Kishore) Member
New Delhi, 27th March, 2017
‘d’
FPA-44/MUM/2017
Page of 1 of 1
2 issues framed by the court
Interpretation of Section 12 of SAFEMA regulates appellate proceedings.
Whether the matter requires re-notification following an earlier appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jaya Anoopchand Shah
The Competent Authority, Mumbai
MANMOHAN SINGH
KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA
ANAND KISHORE
As recorded by the court registry
10 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
