The Tribunal fixed rent and noted a cash deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs as rent payment. The case was listed for final hearing. This was a procedural order.
Adjournment granted and case listed for final hearing on 17.07.2018.
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 FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY NEW DELHI
(Under Section 12 of SAFEMA, 1976 as Amended by Finance Act, 2016)
FPA-12/BOM/2005 Hasina Ibrahim Parker … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Competent Authority, Mumbai … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellant : Shri B.U. Barqi, Advocate
For the respondent : Shri Stanly Joseph, I.O. CORAM SMT. ANANYA RAY : MEMBER
ORDER 11.04.2018
FPA-12/BOM/2005
Heard both the parties on the petition/affidavit filed by the respondent for fixation of rent of the property in question as per the directions of the Tribunal dated 11.04.2017. A stay order was granted by the Tribunal vide its order dated 3rd March, 2006. Thereafter on 11th April, 2017 the Tribunal directed for depositing an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs presumably towards the rent payable for the property occupied by the appellant, which they have paid.
This is a very old matter. I treat the deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs as the amount paid towards rent. I fix this case for final hearing and no further adjournment requests will be entertained. The ld. counsel for the appellant paid in cash the cost fixed on the last date but he was directed to remit it through the alternate accepted modes like cheques etc. with the respondent.
List for final hearing on 17th July, 2018 at 11.00 a.m.
(Ananya Ray) Member
New Delhi, 11th April, 2017 ‘d’
FPA-12/BOM/2005
Page 1 of 1
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hasina Ibrahim Parker
The Competent Authority, Mumbai
Ananya Ray
16 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
