FPA-PMLA-1830/JP/2017 of Shri Anoop Bartaria v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Jaipur
Case brief
What is this about?
Shri Anoop Bartaria V/s The Deputy Director…
A compact analysis
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-3568/JP/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1830/JP/2017
Shri Anoop Bartaria … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Jaipur … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
| For the appellants | : Shri Swadeep Singhora , Advocate Shri Akshay Ringe, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For the respondent |
: Shri Nitesh Rana, Advocate on behalf of Shri Neeraj Atri, Advocate |
| CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH |
: CHAIRMAN |
| SHRI G.C. MISHRA | : MEMBER |
| ORDER 07.07.2017 |
|---|
FPA-PMLA-1830/JP/2017 & MP-PMLA-3568/JP/2017 (Stay)
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under section 26 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the impugned order dated 1st June, 2017 in O.C. No.679/2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Mr. Nitesh Rana, Advocate seeks an adjournment as Mr. Neeraj Atri, the counsel for the respondent is not available. The counsel for the appellant submits that since the notice under section 8(4) has been received, it is likely; the department may take the possession as the period of 10 days has already been expired. As far as the request for adjournment on behalf of the respondent is concerned, the same is allowed.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Anoop Bartaria
- respondent
Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Jaipur
Coram
Manmohan Singh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- ATFP
- Decided on
- · July
- Case no.
- FPA-PMLA-1830/JP/2017
- Topic
- Money Laundering
All orders in this case
17 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court