The appellant failed to appear for the hearing. Consequently, the Appeal under Section 67 of the PMLA filed by Rose Valley Patrika Ltd. was dismissed.
The appeal under Section 67 of the PMLA was dismissed due to non-appearance of the appellant.
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, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI
MP-PMLA-2173/KOL/2015 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1093/KOL/2015
Rose Valley Patrika Ltd. … Appellant Versus The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellant : None. For the respondent : Ms. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam, Advocate for Shri Vikas Garg, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI B.K. BANSAL : MEMBER
ORDER 21.04.2017
FPA-PMLA-1093/KOL/2015
The matter is listed for hearing. No one appears on behalf of the
appellant. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(B.K. Bansal) Member
New Delhi, 21st April, 2017 ‘K’
FPA-PMLA-1093/KOL/2015
Page 1 of 1
Rose Valley Patrika Ltd.
The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata
MANMOHAN SINGH
B.K. BANSAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
