Appellant sought adjournment on grounds that respondent advocate was unavailable. Tribunal listed the proceeding for the following date as it could not proceed.
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-1693/JAIPUR/2017
Surendra Kumar Sharma … Appellant/Applicant
Versus
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Jaipur … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellant : Shri Rajeev Avasthi, Advocate For the respondent : Shri N.K, Matta, Advocate on behalf of Shri Vikas Garg, Advocate
CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER SHRI B.K. BANSAL : MEMBER
ORDER
16.03.2017
FPA-PMLA-1693/JAIPUR/2017
Mr. Vikas Garg, Advocate is not available even today. An adjournment
is sought on his behalf.
List on 23rd March, 2017.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(G.C. Mishra) Member
(B.K. Bansal) Member
New Delhi, 16th March, 2017
‘A’
FPA-PMLA-1693/JAIPUR/2017
Page 1 of 1
Surendra Kumar Sharma
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Jaipur
Manmohan Singh
G.C. Mishra
B.K. Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
