Order adjourning hearing due to availability of respondent's counsel. No substantive decision recorded.
Adjournment of 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-1305/MUM/2016
Kumar Taurani … Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai
… Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellant : Shri Sanjay Chadha, Advocate Sh. Saurabh Kirpal, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Nitesh Rana, Advocate Ms. Akansha, Advocate. CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA : MEMBER SHRI ANAND KISHORE : MEMBER
ORDER
27.03.2017
FPA-PMLA-1305/MUM/2016
Mr. Nitesh Rana, Advocate states that earlier counsel Mr. Shaijan C. George, Advocate was appearing on behalf of the respondent and he has been assigned the case now. He has to receive all the relevant files from him. Thus, an adjournment is sought which is not opposed by the counsel for the appellant.
List on 3rd May, 2017.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(Kaushal Srivastava) Member
(Anand Kishore) Member
New Delhi, 27th March, 2017.
‘K’
FPA-PMLA-1305/MUM/2016 Page 1 of 1
Kumar Taurani
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai
Manmohan Singh
Kaushal Srivastava
Anand Kishore
As recorded by the court registry
6 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
