The Tribunal recorded that an adjournment was sought on behalf of the appellant while the respondent did not appear. The matter was listed for further hearing. As no substantive decision was rendered in this order, it is quia non might be recorded.
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-1438/COCHIN/2016
Ramla … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, Cochin … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellant : Shri N.P. Rakeesh Panicker, Advocate For the respondent : None CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI ANAND KISHORE : MEMBER
ORDER 05.09.2017
FPA-PMLA-1438/COCHIN/2016
An adjournment is sought on behalf of the appellant. No one appears on behalf of the respondent.
List on 9th March, 2018.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(Anand Kishore) Member New Delhi, 5th September, 2017. ‘d’
FPA-PMLA-1438/COCHIN/2016
Page 1 of 1
Ramla
The Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, Cochin
Manmohan Singh
Anand Kishore
As recorded by the court registry
12 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
