The Tribunal condensed a 264-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000. It also issued notices to the respondent in a separate connected appeal.
Condonation of 264 days delay subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000.
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-3453/COCHIN/2017 (COD) & FPA-PMLA-1764/COCHIN/2017 Shri Suresh … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
| For the appellant | : Shri Anubhav Anand Pandey, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For the respondent | : Shri Atul Tripathi, Advocate |
| CORAM | |
| JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH | : CHAIRMAN |
| SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA | : MEMBER |
ORDER 23.05.2017
FPA-PMLA-1764/COCHIN/2017
The appellant has filed the above mentioned appeal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, challenging the order dated 30th June, 2016 in OC No. 549/2016. Alongwith the appeal, the appellant has also filed the application for condonation of delay of 264 days in filing the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has stated earlier that the combined appeal was filed by the wife of the appellant i.e. Priya Suresh and the present appellant and by order dated 27th October, 2016, in view of the objection raised by the respondent, the appellant was asked to file the independent appeal. There is a huge delay in the compliance of order dated 27th October, 2016. Although the delay is not seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent but the fact remains that there is a delay of 264 days. The same is condoned
FPA-PMLA-1764/COCHIN/2017
Page 1 of 2
subject to the cost of Rs. 5,000/- which shall be paid by the appellant to the learned counsel for the respondent within four weeks from today. MP is disposed of.
MP-PMLA-3453/COCHIN/2017 (COD)
Notice is issued to the respondent. Mr. Atul Tripathi, Advocate accepts the notice on behalf of the respondent. Let the reply be filed within six weeks with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder on or before the next date.
List on 14th August, 2017.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(Kaushal Srivastava)
Member
New Delhi, 23rd May, 2017 ‘A’
FPA-PMLA-1764/COCHIN/2017
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the period of 264 days delay in filing the appeal under Section 26 PMLA, 2002 should be condoned.
Whether the combined appeal filed by the wife and appellant should proceed as separate appeals.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Suresh
The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai
Manmohan Singh
Kaushal Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
