The Appellate Tribunal allowed the respondent an extension of two weeks to file a reply, with provision for a rejoinder four weeks later, and listed the matter for hearing later in August 2017.
Extension of two weeks granted for filing reply.
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-2836/BNG/2016 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1468/BNG/2016
Avinash Shankar Kollur (President) … Appellant/Applicant
Versus
The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi
… Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
| For the appellant | : Shri Rudro Chatterjee, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For the respondent | : Shri Nitesh Rana, Advocate |
| CORAM | |
| JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH | : CHAIRMAN |
| SHRI G.C. MISHRA | : MEMBER |
| SHRI B.K. BANSAL | : MEMBER |
ORDER 30.03.2017
FPA-PMLA-1468/BNG/2016
Respondent seeks two weeks more time to file the reply. Let the
same be filed within two weeks with an advance copy to the appellant who may file the rejoinder four weeks thereafter.
List on 24th August, 2017.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(G.C. Mishra) Member
(B.K. Bansal) Member
New Delhi, 30th March, 2017 ‘A’
FPA-PMLA-1468/BNG/2016
Page 1 of 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent should be granted additional time to file a reply.
Avinash Shankar Kollur
The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi
Manmohan Singh
G.C. Mishra
B.K. Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
7 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
