The appellant in a money laundering appeal did not appear despite a second call. The two-judge bench of APIT (PMLA) dismissed the appeal by default on 04.12.2017.
The appeal was dismissed by default due to non-appearance.
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-3716/DLI/2017 (COD) MP-PMLA-3717/DLI/2017 (Stay) MP-PMLA-3718/DLI/2017 (Exem.)
&
FPA-PMLA-1891/DLI/2017
Parveen Kumar … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Mrs. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MAN MOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI ANAND KISHORE : MEMBER ORDER 04.12.2017
FPA-PMLA-1891/DLI/2017
No one appears on behalf of the appellant despite of the second call. The appeal is dismissed.
(Justice ManMohan Singh) Chairman
(Anand Kishore) Member
New Delhi, 04th December, 2017 ‘AS’
FPA-PMLA-1891/DLI/2017
Page 1 of 1
Parveen Kumar
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi
Man Mohan Singh
Anand Kishore
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
