FPA-PMLA-1819/CHN/2017 of M/s Prp Exports v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

Fresh application has been filed under section 8(4) of the Act. Mr. A.K Tripathi, Advocate accepts the notice and seeks time to file the reply. He submits that the possession of the property has been taken as per the procedure and rules. The statement of Mr. Tripathi is denied by the counsel for the appellant who submits that the physical possession has not been taken, even specific notice under Section 8(4) of the Act in the prescribed manner to take the possession has not been received by the appellant. Let the reply be filed within four weeks, rejoinder, if any, be filed by the next date. In view of two version of both sides at this stage, we feel that it would be appropriate if till the next date status quo as of today shall be maintained by both the parties in relation to the attached properties in question.

¶15

FPA-PMLA-1819/CHN/2017

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

List this application as well as the main appeal on 21^st August, 2017.

¶18

FPA-PMLA-1819/CHN/2017

¶19

Issue notice to the respondent. Mr. A.K. Tripathi, Advocate accepts the notice. Let the reply be filed within four weeks, rejoinder be filed by the next date.

¶20

List this appeal on 21.08.2017.

¶21

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶22

(Anand Kishore) Member

¶23

New Delhi, 3^rd July, 2017.

¶24

‘K’

¶25

FPA-PMLA-1819/CHN/2017

¶26

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-1819/CHN/2017 of M/s Prp Exports v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1819/CHN/2017 of M/s Prp Exports v/s The Joint 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