Appeal listed for hearing along with notices to file written synopsis and copies of relevant judgments before the next date; no order passed.
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-1481/AHD/2015 (Misc.)
&
FPA-PMLA-136/AHD/2010 Ms. Madhubala Babulal Modi … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmedabad … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
| For the appellant | : Shri Sumit Shah, Advocate Shri Nimish Kapadia, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For the respondent | : Shri Rajeev Awasthi, Advocate |
| CORAM | |
| JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH | : CHAIRMAN |
| SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA | : MEMBER |
| SHRI ANAND KISHORE | : MEMBER |
ORDER
21.03.2017
MP-PMLA-1481/AHD/2015 (Misc.) & FPA-PMLA-136/AHD/2010
The learned Counsel for the Appellant states that in view of the last order passed in Appeal no. FPA-PMLA-146 to 157/AHD/2011, the writ petitions have since been disposed off by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court (Copy of the Hon’ble High Court’s order is placed before us and the same is taken on record). List the above mentioned Appeal along with the Appeal nos. FPA-PMLA-146 to 157/AHD/2011 on 31st July, 2017.
Mr. Rajeev Awasthi, learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that similar Appeals have already been decided in favour of Respondent by Judgment dated 31st March, 2011 passed in Appeal nos. FPA-PMLA15/AHD/2008, FPA-PMLA-16/AHD/2008, FPA-PMLA-25/AHD/2008 and FPA-PMLA-26/AHD/2008 and on 24th June, 2011 in Appeal no.
FPA-PMLA-136/AHD/2010
Page 1 of 2
21/AHD/2008. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the facts and circumstances of the present Appeal are different. It is also informed that there are subsequent events where the two orders are passed in favour of the Appellant and copies of orders would be filed at an early date. Anyhow, without expressing any opinion on merits at this stage, the objection of Mr. Rajeev Awasthi, Advocate would also be considered at the time of hearing of the Appeal.
Both the parties are allowed to file written synopsis along with the copies of the judgments which were decided earlier by this Tribunal and other judgments on which they rely on or before the next date.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(Kaushal Srivastava) Member
(Anand Kishore) Member
New Delhi, 21st March, 2017
‘R’
FPA-PMLA-136/AHD/2010
Page 2 of 2
Madhubala Babulal Modi
The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmedabad
Manmohan Singh
Kaushal Srivastava
Anand Kishore
As recorded by the court registry
21 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
