The Tribunal adjourned the forfeiture proceeding as the respondent's counsel was unprepared. An argument regarding service of notice while the appellant was in judicial custody was noted, but no order was passed and the matter was re-notified.
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
FPA-ND-30/DLI/2014 Nishan Singh … Appellant/Applicant
Versus
The Competent Authority, Delhi … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
| For the appellant | : Shri Vipul Jindal, Advocate, Shri Himanshu Gupta, Advocate & Shri Vishal Khatri, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For the respondent | : Shri S.P. Aggarwal Sharma, Advocate |
| CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH |
: CHAIRMAN |
| SHRI G.C. MISHRA | : MEMBER |
ORDER
06.04.2017
FPA-ND-30/DLI/2014
Counsel for the respondent is not ready with the matter. The learned counsel for the appellant’s main argument is that the Nishan Singh was served with the notice before confirming the freezing order on 26th October, 2014. The next date in the said notice was mentioned on 27th October, 2014. Therefore, he was not in a position to appear before the Competent Authority as he was in judicial custody. The counsel is also ready with the argument on merits. However, the learned counsel for the respondent sought adjournment on personal ground. No objection from the side of the appellant.
FPA-ND-30/DLI/2014
Page 1 of 2
Re-notified on 22nd May, 2017.
(Justice Manmohan Singh)
Chairman
New Delhi, 06th April, 2017
‘A’
FPA-ND-20/DLI/2014
Page 2 of 2
Nishan Singh
The Competent Authority, Delhi
Manmohan Singh
G.C. Mishra
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
