Astitness order because the appellant was not served. The respondent is directed to serve notice for the next hearing date.
Notice of the hearing for 11th August 2017 is directed to be served on the appellant.
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-3196/CHN/2017 (COD) &
FPA-PMLA-1673/CHN/2017
Sri Franklin Samuel Raj Toney … Appellant/Applicant
Versus
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellant : None For the respondent : Shri Mohammad Faraz, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA : MEMBER SHRI ANAND KISHORE : MEMBER
ORDER 27.04.2017
FPA-PMLA-1673/CHN/2017
It appears that appellant is not served. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the appellant is in judicial custody. Earlier the notice was sent to him at the old address. Under these circumstances, the respondent to serve the notice to the appellant for the next date i.e. 11th August, 2017.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(Kaushal Srivastava) Member
(Anand Kishore) Member
New Delhi, 27th April, 2017 ‘AS’
FPA-PMLA-1673/CHN/2017
Page 1 of 1
Sri Franklin Samuel Raj Toney
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai
MANMOHAN SINGH
KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA
ANAND KISHORE
As recorded by the court registry
9 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
