In the first matter, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the prayer to condone delay. In the second adjourned matter, it noted no reply and listed the case for the next 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-2645/DLI/2016 (COD) FPA-PMLA-1413/DLI/2016
Smt. Sharda Maheshwari … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
| For the appellant | : Shri Yogender Handoo, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For the respondent | : Shri Atul Tripathi, Advocate |
| CORAM | |
| JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH | : CHAIRMAN |
| SHRI G.C. MISHRA | : MEMBER |
| SHRI B.K. BANSAL | : MEMBER |
ORDER 16.02.2017
MP-PMLA-2645/DLI/2016 (COD)
No reply has been filed. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that as far as the condonation of delay is concerned, he leave it on the Tribunal. For the reasons stated in the application, the prayer is allowed. The delay is condone
The application is disposed of accordingly.
FPA-PMLA-1413/DLI/2016
The matter is adjourned at the request of counsel for the respondent.
FPA-PMLA/1413/DLI/2016
Page 1 of 2
List on 10th March, 2017
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
New Delhi, 16th February, 2017
‘s’
FPA-PMLA/1413/DLI/2016
Page 2 of 2
Smt. Sharda Maheshwari
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi
Manmohan Singh
G.C. Mishra
B.K. Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
