An interim order in money laundering proceedings where both the arguing counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent were unavailable, resulting in a request for the matter to be listed for a 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
MP-PMLA-2362/IDR/2016 (Exemption)
&
FPA-PMLA-1197/IDR/2016
Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Indore … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the Appellant : Mr. Harshit Sethi, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Sanjana, Advocate On behalf of Mr. Vikas Garg, Advocate
CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN
ORDER 08.09.2017
FPA-PMLA-1197/IDR/2016
The arguing counsel on behalf of the appellant is not available due to personal reason and even Mr. Vikas Garg, learned counsel of the respondent is also not available.
At request, list on 22nd March, 2018.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
New Delhi, 08th September, 2017 ‘AS’
FPA-PMLA-1197/IDR/2016
Page 1 of 1
Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd.
The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Indore
Justice Manmohan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
11 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
