The appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal and accompanying application because the counsel for the appellant stated they had no instructions to argue the matter.
Appeal and application dismissed.
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-2762/PTN/2016 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1456/PTN/2016
Md. Naushad @ Nasia … Appellant /applicant Versus The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellant : Shri Gitanjali N. Sharma, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Nitesh Rana, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER
ORDER 06.07.2017
FPA-PMLA-1456/PTN/2016
The counsel for the appellant submits that she has not received any instruction from the appellant so she is not in a position to argue the matter. In view of the fact and circumstances the appeal as well as application are dismissed.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(G.C. Mishra) Member
New Delhi, 6th July, 2017
‘K’
FPA-PMLA-1456/PTN/2016
Page 1 of 1
Md. Naushad @ Nasia
The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna
Manmohan Singh
G.C. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
