Partly allowed

FPA-PMLA-938/MUM/2015 of Nilesh J. Thakur v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

ATFP2 May 2017FPA-PMLA-938/MUM/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal granted the appellant one opportunity to file a reply within six weeks pending adjudication on a cost of Rs. 75,000 to cover hearing fees for all related appeals, no adjournment being granted.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file reply within six weeks subject to payment of Rs. 75,000 costs.

FPA-PMLA-938/MUM/2015 of Nilesh J. Thakur v/s The Deputy… — Banking and Recovery | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3029/MUM/2016 (Misc) In MP-PMLA-2045/MUM/2015 (Stay)

¶3

¶4

FPA-PMLA-938/MUM/2015

¶5

Nilesh J. Thakur	…	Appellant/Applicant
Versus
The Deputy Director
Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai	…	Respondent

¶6

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶7

For the appellant	:	Shri Rajshekhar Rao, Advocate Shri Arjun Krishnan, Advocate Shri Gauri Puri, Advocate
For the respondent	:	Shri S.A. Saud, Advocate
For th Nitesh J. Thakur	:	Shri Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rahul Narayan, Advocate Mr. AjitSanjyoti Redkar, Adv.
CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	:	CHAIRMAN
SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA	:	MEMBER
SHRI ANAND KISHORE	:	MEMBER

¶8

ORDER

¶9

02.05.2017

¶10

FPA-PMLA-938/MUM/2015

¶11

Fresh vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of Mr. Nitesh J. Thakur. Counsel appear on behalf of the Mr. Nitesh J. Thakur submits that the address mentioned in the earlier vakalatnama filed in March,, 2017 is same. The counsel seeks time to file the reply. The said request is opposed on behalf of the appellant as well as respondent

¶12

FPA-PMLA-938/MUM/2015

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

Mr. S.A. Saud, learned counsel for the respondent submits that Nitesh J. Thakur did not join the investigation and also had not defended or appeared before the Adjudicating Authority. In case the request made on his behalf is allowed to file the reply, a heavy cost should be imposed and secondly as the documents and reply filed by the Nitesh J. Thakur is to be rebutted by the department.

¶15

Normally, the said liberty to file the reply at this stage ought not to be the granted. But on the last date, the ex-parte orders were aside by the consent of both the parties.

¶16

The request to file the reply was accepted in order to decide the real controversy between the parties. It was appeared that Nitesh J. Thakur would not press for any relief in any form to grant him nonappearance before the Adjudicating Authority. On his behalf after the filing of reply, the arguments would be addressed on his behalf.

¶17

Thus, in the interest of justice, Only one opportunity is granted to file the reply within six weeks subject to cost of Rs. 75,000/- for all the matters and the same shall be paid Rs. 37,500/- to the counsel for the appellant in all appeals and remaining Rs. 37,500/- be paid to the counsel for the respondent.

¶18

As there are part-heard matters, no adjournment for filing the reply would be granted and this would be the last opportunity. Reply be filed with a copy to the counsel for the appellants as well as leaned counsel for the respondent no. 1 within six weeks from today. They

¶19

FPA-PMLA-938/MUM/2015

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

would be entitled to file their response on or before the next date of hearing.

¶22

List on 27^th July, 2017 at 2:30 pm.

¶23

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶24

(Kaushal Srivastava)

¶25

Member

¶26

(Anand Kishore) Member

¶27

New Delhi, 2^nd May, 2017.

¶28

‘s’

¶29

FPA-PMLA-938/MUM/2015

¶30

Page 3 of 3

FPA-PMLA-938/MUM/2015 of Nilesh J. Thakur v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-938/MUM/2015 of Nilesh J. Thakur 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

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases