The Appeal Tribunal adjourned the hearing of an appeal under the PMLA due to the absence of the primary counsel on health grounds. The matter is listed for the next hearing.
Hearing adjourned to 6th April 2017.
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-1155/PAT/2014 (Stay) & FPA-PMLA-646/PAT/2014
Mantu Yadav Raj Kumar Yadav … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Patna … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellant : Shri Pawan Kumar Mittal, Advocate For the respondent : Shri N.K. Matta, Advocate
CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER SHRI B.K. BANSAL : MEMBER
ORDER 03.02.2017
FPA-PMLA-646/PAT/2014
Mr. Puneet Mittal, Advocate is to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellant is not available due to ill health of his father; proxy counsel seeks an adjournment which is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent also seeks two weeks time to file the copy of the complaint. Both the parties will also file the
written synopsis as mentioned even in the last date of hearing.
List on 6th April, 2017.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(G.C. Mishra) Member
(B.K. Bansal) Member
New Delhi, 3rd February, 2017 ‘d’
FPA-PMLA-646/PAT/2014
Page 1 of 1
Mantu Yadav Raj Kumar Yadav
The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Patna
Manmohan Singh
G.C. Mishra
B.K. Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
