The Tribunal granted the appellants' request for an adjournment because no one appeared, citing a pending writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court. The respondent stated that rent for the property was not yet fixed, and the hearing was listed for the next date.
Adjournment of the matter to the next date of hearing.
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
MP-49/BOM/2014 (S.P.)
FPA-9/BOM/2014 Sanjay N. Waghmare … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Competent Authority, Mumbai … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellant : None For the respondent : Shri R.N. D’souza, Joint Commissioner & Shri Ratnessh Srivastava, Inspecting Officer CORAM SMT. ANANYA RAY : MEMBER
ORDER 05.12.2017
FPA-FE-9/BOM/2004
No one appears for the appellant. They have sent request for an adjournment on the ground that they have filed the writ petition before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court against the Tribunal order dated 18th May, 2015 which is listed for hearing today (i.e. 05.12.2017). Accordingly an adjournment is granted. Shri R.N. D’souza, Joint Commissioner, Competent Authority appeared for the respondent and he stated that the rent for the property has not yet been fixed. In the interest of justice, I allow the short adjournment as requested by the appellants and the issue of rent would be taken up on the next date of hearing.
List on 9th January, 2018.
Notice to be issued to the appellant and his counsel by the registry.
(Ananya Ray) Member
New Delhi, 5th December, 2017. ‘D’ FPA-9/BOM/2014 Page 1 of 1
Sanjay N. Waghmare
The Competent Authority, Mumbai
Ananya Ray
8 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
