Dismissed

FPA-PMLA-1713/CHN/2017 of Thiru S.K. Karthikeyan v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

ATFP25 Apr 2017FPA-PMLA-1713/CHN/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal and stay application regarding a notice under Section 8(4) of the PMLA. Directions issued for filing reply and rejoinder. Notice issued by the court for both proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued in appeal and stay application returnable on 10th August, 2017. Directions for filing reply and rejoinder.

What the court decided

FPA-PMLA-1713/CHN/2017 of Thiru S.K. Karthikeyan v/s The Deputy… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP- PMLA-3317/CHN/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1713/CHN/2017

¶3

Thiru S.K. Karthikeyan … Applicant/Appellant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the appellant : Shri M.P. Parthiban, Advocate For the respondent : Ms. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA : MEMBER SHRI ANAND KISHORE : MEMBER

¶4

ORDER

¶5

25.04.2017

¶6

FPA-PMLA-1713/CHN/2017 & MP- PMLA-3317/CHN/2017 (Stay)

¶7

The appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the order dated 2^nd February, 2017. Alongwith the appeal the appellant has also filed the application for stay. Issue notice in the appeal as well as in the stay application returnable on 10^th August, 2017.

¶8

In the meanwhile, Ms. Shipli Satyapriya Satyam accepts the notice on behalf of the respondent. 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.

¶9

The learned counsel for the appellant states that property no. 5 is the residential property which is owned by the father of Shri S.K. Karthikeyan. Property at S.No. 7 is also a residential property. The main counsel on behalf

¶10

FPA-PMLA-1713/CHN/2017

¶11

Page 1 of 2

¶12

of the respondent is not available due to personal reasons. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the notice under section 8(4) has not been received from the respondent. The appellant is allowed to press the interim application as and when if the notice is received under section 8(4) pertaining to property no. 5 & 7 the details which are mentioned of page no. 24 in the paper book.

¶13

List on 10^th August, 2017.

¶14

The reply in the appeal and as well as the stay application be filed within six weeks. It is further clarified that if the notice under section 8(4) of the Act is issued by the respondent copy of the same may also be supplied to the counsel for the appellant.

¶15

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶16

(Kaushal Srivastava) Member

¶17

(Anand Kishore)

¶18

Member

¶19

New Delhi, 25^th April, 2017

¶20

‘d’

¶21

FPA-PMLA-1713/CHN/2017

¶22

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-1713/CHN/2017 of Thiru S.K. Karthikeyan v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

FPA-PMLA-1713/CHN/2017 of Thiru S.K. Karthikeyan v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

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