Disposed

FPA-PMLA-1799/KOL/2017 of Toushif Enterprise v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata

ATFP10 Aug 2017FPA-PMLA-1799/KOL/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal, PMLA admitted a delay condonation application for Toushif Enterprise. The order also noted the respondent's lack of awareness regarding a status quo order in a separate matter, though the case did not dispose of the substantive appeals or stay.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the appeal and application for condonation of delay is admitted.

FPA-PMLA-1799/KOL/2017 of Toushif Enterprise v/s The Joint… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3688/KOL/2017 (COD) MP-PMLA-3257/KOL/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1799/KOL/2017

¶3

Toushif Enterprise … Appellant Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata … Respondent

¶4

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶5

For the appellant	:	Shri Farook M. Razack, Sr. Advocate Shri Faisal Farook, Advocate Shri Subhail Farook, Advocate
For the respondent	:	Shri Atul Tripathi, Advocate
CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH SHRI G.C. MISHRA	: :	CHAIRMAN MEMBER
	ORDER 10.08.2017

¶6

FPA-PMLA-1799/KOL/2017, MP-PMLA-3688/KOL/2017 (COD) & MPPMLA-3257/KOL/2017 (Stay)

¶7

In view of the last order the fresh application has been filed explaining the entire position. The learned counsel for the respondent after having gone through the application does not oppose the delay in filing the appeal. In view of the averments made in the application the delay is condoned. The application for condontion of delay i.e. MP-PMLA3688/KOL/2017 (COD) is disposed of.

¶8

FPA-PMLA-1799/KOL/2017

¶9

Page 1 of 2

¶10

Replies to the stay application and appeal be filed within four weeks with an advance copy to the counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinders within four weeks thereafter.

¶11

Mr. Tripathi, the learned counsel for the respondent has informed us that the respondent was not aware about the passing of status quo order dated 6^th July, 2017 and probably the status quo order was typed in the appeal no. FPA-PMLA-1800/KOL/2017 due to oversight. He submits that since the respondent was not aware of the status quo order, the possession of few properties have been taken even the notice under section 8(4) has been issued in the matter.

¶12

List on 23^rd November, 2017.

¶13

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶14

(G.C. Mishra) Member

¶15

New Delhi,

¶16

10^th August, 2017

¶17

‘d’

¶18

FPA-PMLA-1799/KOL/2017

¶19

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-1799/KOL/2017 of Toushif Enterprise v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1799/KOL/2017 of Toushif Enterprise v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases