The Tribunal noted that the reply was not filed but that the learned Counsel for the Respondent stated that the reply was ready and would be filed in the Registry. The matter was listed for future 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 PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI
FPA-PMLA-1176/AHD/2016
Chirag Parikh … Appellant Versus The Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmadabad … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellant : Shri Parmatma Singh, Advocate Shri Mayank Jain, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Atul Tripathi, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA : MEMBER SHRI ANAND KISHORE : MEMBER ORDER 21.03.2017
FPA-PMLA-1176/AHD/2016
Reply has not been filed. The learned Counsel for the Respondent states that reply is ready and copy of the same is handed over to the learned Counsel for the Appellant and he will file the reply in the Registry during the course of the day. Rejoinder, if necessary, be filed within four weeks. List on 4th July, 2017.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(Kaushal Srivastava) Member
(Anand Kishore)
Member
New Delhi, 21st March, 2017 ‘R’
FPA-PMLA-1176/AHD/2016
Page 1 of 1
Chirag Parikh
The Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmadabad
Manmohan Singh
Kaushal Srivastava
Anand Kishore
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
