Allowed

FPA-PMLA-1710/BNG/2017 of H.M. Maltesh v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore

ATFP27 Apr 2017FPA-PMLA-1710/BNG/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal admitted an application for condonation of delay in filing a fresh appeal and disposed of that matter separately. For filed appeals, it directed the issuance of notice to the respondent and registered a stay application pending receipt of a Section 8(4) notice, granting time limits for reply and rejoinder.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay allowed and appeal MP-PMLA-3300/BNG/2017 disposed off. Notice issued for other appeals. Reply to stay application to be filed by respondent within six weeks of ser

FPA-PMLA-1710/BNG/2017 of H.M. Maltesh v/s The Deputy Director… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3300/BNG/2017 (COD) MP-PMLA-3301/BNG/2017 (Stay)

¶3

¶4

FPA-PMLA-1710/BNG/2017

¶5

H.M. Maltesh … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore … Respondent

¶6

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶7

For the appellant : Mr. Rakesh Gosain, Advocate For the respondent : Ms. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER SHRI B.K. BANSAL : MEMBER

¶8

ORDER 27.04.2017

¶9

MP-PMLA-3300/BNG/2017 (COD)

¶10

A fresh appeal has been filed by appellant challenging the impugned order dated 31^st January, 2017 passed in O.C. No. 648/2016. Along with the appeal the appellant has filed two applications i.e. Condonation of Delay of five days as well as Interim application. As far as the application for Condonation of Delay is concerned in view of the reasons explained in the application, we are inclined to condone the delay. As no objection is raised on behalf of respondent on account of small delay. The prayer made in the application is allowed. M.P. is disposed off.

¶11

FPA-PMLA-1710/BNG/2017

¶12

Page 1 of 2

¶13

FPA-PMLA-1710/BNG/2017

¶14

Issue notice to the respondent. Mrs. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam, Advocate accepts the notice on behalf of the Respondent. Let the reply be filed within six weeks with an advance copy to the counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder within four weeks thereafter.

¶15

List this appeal on 1^st September, 2017.

¶16

MP-PMLA-3301/BNG/2017 (Stay)

¶17

As far as the application for stay is concerned the Learned Counsel for the Appellant although pressing for Interim Order, but admits that notice Under Section 8 (4) is not received. In case the respondent chooses to issue the notice Under Section 8 (4) of PMLA 2002, a copy of the notice be served to the counsel for the appellant who may press the interim order immediately. In the meanwhile, six weeks time is granted to the respondent to file the reply with an advance copy to the counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder within four weeks thereafter.

¶18

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶19

(G.C. Mishra) Member

¶20

(B.K. Bansal) Member

¶21

New Delhi, 27^th April, 2017

¶22

‘AS’

¶23

FPA-PMLA-1710/BNG/2017

¶24

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-1710/BNG/2017 of H.M. Maltesh v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1710/BNG/2017 of H.M. Maltesh v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases