Disposed

FPA-PMLA-1355/MUM/2016 of M/s. Devisha Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

ATFP13 Feb 2017FPA-PMLA-1355/MUM/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an interlocutory application, the Appellate Tribunal waived costs imposed for respondent's default in filing reply, permitted limited procedural steps, and adjourned for a hearing on merits.

What did the court decide?

Award of Rs. 10,000 costs on appellant was waived; leave granted for additional documents and intervention application.

FPA-PMLA-1355/MUM/2016 of M/s. Devisha Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-2736/MUM/2016 (Stay)

¶3

¶4

FPA-PMLA-1355/MUM/2016

¶5

M/s. Devisha Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant/Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

¶8

… Respondent

¶9

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶10

For the appellant	: Ms. Manali Singhal, Advocate Shri Karan Vyas, Advocate Shri Santosh Sachin, Advocate
For the respondent	: Shri Nitesh Rana, Advocate for
	Shri S.A. Saud, Advocate
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	: CHAIRMAN
SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA	: MEMBER
SHRI ANAND KISHORE	: MEMBER

¶11

ORDER 13.02.2017

¶12

FPA-PMLA-1355/MUM/2016

¶13

It appears that on the last date of hearing the cost was imposed on the appellant for adjournment. As a matter of fact the notice in the appeal was issued on 31^st August, 2016. The time was sought by counsel for the respondent to file the reply. Reply has not been filed for last five months.

¶14

Under these circumstances, we are of the view that actual there was a default on the part of the respondent and the cost of Rs. 10,000/was imposed on the appellant. Hence the same is waved.

¶15

Let the reply be filed as a last opportunity within four weeks with an advance copy to the counsel for the appellant, who may file the rejoinder within four weeks thereafter.

¶16

FPA-PMLA-1355/MUM/2016

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant wishes to file the application for additional documents. The registry to accept the said application if filed by the appellant. A copy of the same has been handed over to the counsel for the Respondent.

¶19

Mr. Rahul Panday, Advocate also wishes to file an application for intervention. He submits that his client is an investor in the property who has invested around Rs. 44 crores. Let him file the application in the registry. The same will be considered on the next date of hearing on merits. Copy of the application be given to the appellant as well as respondent. Reply be filed by the appellant and respondent if so required.

¶20

List on 25^th April, 2017.

¶21

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶22

(Kaushal Srivastava) Member

¶23

(Anand Kishore) Member

¶24

New Delhi, 13^th February, 2017 ‘s’

¶25

FPA-PMLA-1355/MUM/2016

¶26

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-1355/MUM/2016 of M/s. Devisha Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1355/MUM/2016 of M/s. Devisha Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases