In FPA-PMLA-855/MUM/2015, the bench adjourned arguments because no reply was filed by the respondent, noting no fresh grounds were in the appeal.
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-1638/MUM/2015 (Stay) &
FPA-PMLA-855/MUM/2015
M/s Banpal Oil Chem Pvt Ltd. … Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai
… Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellant : Shri Saurav Sood, Advocate
For the respondent : Shri S.A. Saud, Advocate
CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA : MEMBER
ORDER 24.04.2017
FPA-PMLA-855/MUM/2015
Reply has not been filed. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submits that since no fresh grounds have been made in the appeal, therefore, reply is not necessary.
List for arguments on 31st May, 2017.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(Kaushal Srivastava) Member
New Delhi, 24th April, 2017 ‘AS’
FPA-PMLA-855/MUM/2015
Page 1 of 1
M/s Banpal Oil Chem Pvt Ltd
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai
Manmohan Singh
Kaushal Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
13 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
