FPA-PMLA-1860/MUM/2017 of 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

For the Appellant : Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate Mr. Ankur Saigal, Advocate For the Respondent : None CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G. C. MISHRA : MEMBER

¶10

ORDER 09.11.2017

¶11

MP-PMLA-3663/MUM/2017 (Stay) & FPA-PMLA-1860/MUM/2017

¶12

The matter is listed today. No one appears on behalf of the respondent. Earlier Mr. S. A. Saud, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent. An adjournment is sought on behalf of the respondent mainly on the reason that Mr. S. A. Saud, Advocate is no more appearing on behalf of the Department. The Respondent has to engage services of another new counsel.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a short date may be fixed and a short adjournment may be granted. In the interest of justice, as the appellant is suffering a lot due to the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, list this matter on 14^th November, 2017.

¶14

We request the respondent to engage the services of another counsel in place of Mr. S. A. Saud, counsel who is not appearing any more for the Department. Liberty is also granted to the respondent to file the written FPA-PMLA-1860/MUM/2017 Page 1 of 2

¶15

synopsis on or before the next date. Till that date, the Interim Order already passed shall continue.

¶16

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶17

(G.C. Mishra) Member

¶18

New Delhi, 09^th November, 2017

¶19

‘AS’

¶20

FPA-PMLA-1860/MUM/2017 Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-1860/MUM/2017 of 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1860/MUM/2017 of 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

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