Appeal against an order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The bench granted the appellant two weeks to serve the respondent No. 3 and listed the matter for a further hearing.
Granted two weeks time to serve respondent No. 3.
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-3376/CHN/2017 (Stay) & FPA-PMLA-1745/CHN/2017 Srimathi S. Sarumathi & Anr. … Appellants Versus
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
| For the appellants | : Shri Aswathi M.K., Advocate |
|---|---|
| For the respondent | : Shri Neeraj Atri, Advocate on behalf of Shri Vikas Garg, Advocate |
| For the respondent No. 2 | : Ms. Anupriya Singh, Advocate |
| CORAM | |
| JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH | : CHAIRMAN |
| SHRI G.C. MISHRA | : MEMBER |
ORDER 07.12.2017
FPA-PMLA-1745/CHN/2017
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks some more time to take the necessary steps to serve the respondent No. 3. Let the steps be taken within two weeks.
List on 26th April, 2018.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(G.C. Mishra) Member
New Delhi, 07th December, 2017 ‘A’ FPA-PMLA-1745/CHN/2017
Page 1 of 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant required additional time to serve the respondent No. 3.
Srimathi S. Sarumathi & Anr.
Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai
Manmohan Singh
G.C. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
12 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
