Partly allowed

FPA-PMLA-1664/MUM/2017 of M/s Armstrong Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

ATFP6 Mar 2017FPA-PMLA-1664/MUM/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal allowed the condonation of a 159-day delay in filing an appeal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, imposing a cost of Rs. 50,000, and fixed the matter for hearing.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal with a cost of Rs. 50,000.

What the court decided

FPA-PMLA-1664/MUM/2017 of M/s Armstrong Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai — ATFP (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3191/MUM/2017 (COD) MP-PMLA-3192/MUM/2017 (Stay) & FPA-PMLA-1664/MUM/2017 M/s Armstrong Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai … Respondent

¶3

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶4

For the appellant	: Ms. Manali Singhal, Advocate Shri Karan Vyas, Advocate
For the respondent	: Shri S.A. Saud, Advocate
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	: CHAIRMAN
SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA	: MEMBER
SHRI ANAND KISHORE	: MEMBER

¶5

ORDER 06.03.2017

¶6

MP-PMLA-3191/MUM/2017 (COD)

¶7

The Appellant has filed the appeal impugning the order dated 8^th July, 2016 which was received by the Appellant on 24^th July, 2016. Along with the Appeal, the Appellant has filed the present application for Condonation of Delay of 159 days in filing the Appeal. Issue notice to the Respondent. After small hearing, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that connected matters are coming up on 25^th April, 2017 and in case the delay is to be condoned in the above said application, the same should be condoned with heavy cost. Normally, we would not have condoned such long delay, since connected matters are also coming up, in the interest of justice, the delay of 159 days is condoned subject to the cost of 50,000/- which would be paid by the Appellant to the learned

¶8

FPA-PMLA-1664/MUM/2017

¶9

Page 1 of 2

¶10

Counsel for the Respondent within four weeks. The application is disposed off accordingly.

¶11

MP-PMLA-3192/MUM/2017 (Stay) & FPA-PMLA-1664/MUM/2017

¶12

Issue notice of the Appeal as well as application. Mr. S.A. Saud, the learned Counsel for the Respondent accepts notice and seeks time to file the replies. Let the same be filed within four weeks with an advance copy to the learned Counsel for the Appellant who may file rejoinders four weeks thereafter. List the Appeal along with the Application on 25^th April, 2017.

¶13

The learned Counsel for the Appellant is pressing for interim order. The said prayer is opposed by the learned Counsel for the Respondent. Admittedly, notice under Section 8(4) has not been issued in the matter. In case the same is issued, the copy of the same may also be given to the Advocate of the Appellant who may make application for urgent hearing so that we may pass appropriate order at that stage, if so required.

¶14

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶15

(Kaushal Srivastava) Member

¶16

(Anand Kishore)

¶17

Member

¶18

New Delhi, 6^th March, 2017

¶19

‘R’

¶20

FPA-PMLA-1664/MUM/2017

¶21

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-1664/MUM/2017 of M/s Armstrong Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

FPA-PMLA-1664/MUM/2017 of M/s Armstrong Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases