Allowed

FPA-PMLA-939/MUM/2015 of Nilesh J. Thakur v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

ATFP11 Jan 2017FPA-PMLA-939/MUM/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal allowed an application for substituted service by publication in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act matter. The tribunal permitted service via English and Marathi newspapers in Mumbai as the original notice was unclaimed.

What did the court decide?

Service of notice on Respondent No. 2 is permitted by way of publication in English and Marathi newspapers circulating in Mumbai.

FPA-PMLA-939/MUM/2015 of Nilesh J. Thakur v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai — ATFP (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3030/MUM/2016 (Misc) In MP-PMLA-2046/MUM/2015 (Stay) &

¶3

FPA-PMLA-939/MUM/2015

¶4

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

¶5

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶6

For the appellant	:	Shri	Arjun Krishnan, Advocate
For the respondent	:	None
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH		:	CHAIRMAN
SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA		:	MEMBER
SHRI ANAND KISHORE		:	MEMBER

¶7

ORDER

¶8

11.01.2017

¶9

MP-PMLA-3030/MUM/2016 (Misc) In MP-PMLA-2046/MUM/2015 (Stay) & FPA-PMLA-939/MUM/2015

¶10

Fresh application has been filed for the substituted service on unserved respondent no. 2 by way of publication. It is stated in the application that as per last order, the notice was sent by the Advocate to the respondent no. 2 by speed post. However, the same has been returned with the remarks “unclaimed returned to sender”. Returned envelope has been enclosed alongwith the application. It is submitted that the appellant has only the last known address of respondent no. 2, and no other address of this respondent is known to the appellant. Therefore, there is no other way to effect service on respondent no. 2 except by way of substituted service by way of publication. Issue notice to the respondent no. 1. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 1

¶11

FPA-PMLA-939/MUM/2015

¶12

Page 1 of 2

¶13

has no objection if prayer is allowed in the said application. For the reasons stated in the application, the prayer is allowed. The appellant is permitted to serve the respondent no. 2 by way of publication in the English newspaper and Marathi newspaper having circulation in Mumbai area. The appellant will take necessary steps within two weeks from today.

¶14

List this matter on14^th February, 2017.

¶15

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶16

(Kaushal Srivastava) Member

¶17

(Anand Kishore) Member

¶18

New Delhi, 11^th January, 2017.

¶19

„A‟

¶20

FPA-PMLA-939/MUM/2015

¶21

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-939/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-939/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