Allowed

FPA-PMLA-1093/KOL/2015 of Rose Valley Patrika Ltd. v/s The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata

ATFP30 May 2017FPA-PMLA-1093/KOL/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal allowed a fresh application to withdraw the Vakalatnama of the former counsel for the appellant. New counsel was permitted to appear if the Vakalatnama was filed by the next date under threat of dismissal, and the appeal was listed for hearing.

What did the court decide?

The application for withdrawal of Vakalatnama was allowed; new counsel permitted to file Vakalatnama by next date; appeal listed for hearing.

FPA-PMLA-1093/KOL/2015 of Rose Valley Patrika Ltd. v/s The Joint… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3513/KOL/2017 (Misc) MP-PMLA-2173/KOL/2015 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1093/KOL/2015

¶3

Rose Valley Patrika Ltd. … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata … Respondent

¶4

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶5

For the Appellant	: Shri Samiron Borkataky, Advocate For M/s I. G. & Associates Shri Mudit Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent	: Shri Vikas Garg, Advocate
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	: CHAIRMAN
SHRI B.K. BANSAL	: MEMBER

¶6

ORDER

¶7

30.05.2017

¶8

MP-PMLA-3513/KOL/2017 (Misc), MP-PMLA-2173/KOL/2015 (Stay) & FPA-PMLA-1093/KOL/2015

¶9

A fresh application has been filed by the appellant for the withdrawal of the Vakalatnama. Counsel for the respondent submits that it is a delaying tactics on the part of the appellant to drag the proceeding by playing hide and seek policy. As new counsel has appeared before us who undertook to file the Vakalatnama and reply within two weeks, in view of the statement made by the counsel the present application is allowed and the earlier counsel is allowed to withdraw his Vakalatnama. We may clarify here that the Vakalatnama of the New Counsel for the appellant must be filed by the next date. In case the compliance is not made the appeal is likely to be dismissed.

¶10

FPA-PMLA-1093/KOL/2015

¶11

Page 1 of 2

¶12

List this appeal for hearing on 23^rd August, 2017.

¶13

Present counsel as well as the earlier counsel undertook before us to

¶14

inform the appellant about the next date of hearing of the case.

¶15

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶16

(B.K. Bansal) Member

¶17

New Delhi, 30^th May, 2017

¶18

‘AS’

¶19

FPA-PMLA-1093/KOL/2015

¶20

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-1093/KOL/2015 of Rose Valley Patrika Ltd. v/s The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1093/KOL/2015 of Rose Valley Patrika Ltd. v/s The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases