An order listing the matter for adjournment while continuing an interim order passed earlier. No substantive legal proposition was decided as the argued counsel were absent.
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-159/LKW/2011
Anosh Ekka … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
| For the appellant | : Shri Rajeev Awasthi, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For the respondent |
: Shri Nitesh Rana, Advocate |
| CORAM | |
| JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH | : CHAIRMAN |
| SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA | : MEMBER |
| SHRI ANAND KISHORE | : MEMBER |
ORDER 01.03.2017
FPA-PMLA-159/LKW/2011
The arguing counsel on behalf of the respondent is not available. An adjournment is sought which is not opposed by Mr. Rajeev Awasthi, Advocate. List this matter on 17th July, 2017.
The interim order passed on 06th February, 2017 shall continue.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(Kaushal Srivastava) Member
(Anand Kishore) Member
New Delhi, 01st March, 2017 ‘A’
FPA-PMLA-159/LKW/2011
Page 1 of 1
Anosh Ekka
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow
Manmohan Singh
Kaushal Srivastava
Anand Kishore
As recorded by the court registry
8 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
