FPA-FE-154/MUM/2010 of Sh. Rais Ahmed v/s The Special Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai
Case brief
What is this about?
A proceeding where the bench was noted as incomplete because the Chairman was unavailable due to other official duties. The order did not adjudicate the appeals or provide relief.
What the court decided
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT AT NEW DELHI
| FPA-FE-52/MUM/2011 M/s. Splendour Gems Ltd. |
… | Appellant |
|---|---|---|
| FPA-FE-53/MUM/2011 | ||
| Sh. Kishor K. Mehta | … | Appellant |
| FPA-FE-54/MUM/2011 | ||
| Sh. Govindbhai J. Patel | … | Appellant |
| FPA-FE-95/MUM/2010 | ||
| M/s. Beautiful Diamonds | … | Appellant |
| FPA-FE-96/MUM/2010 | ||
| Sh. Kishore Mehta | … | Appellant |
| FPA-FE-97/MUM/2010 | ||
| Sh. Rajesh Kishore Mehta | … | Appellant |
| FPA-FE-98/MUM/2010 | ||
| Sh. Govindbhai J. Patel | … | Appellant |
| FPA-FE-199/MUM/2010 | ||
| M/s. Fabrigem Creation (P) Ltd. | … | Appellant |
| FPA-FE-200/MUM/2010 | ||
| Sh. Prashant K. Mehta | … | Appellant |
| FPA-FE-201/MUM2010 | ||
| Sh. Rajesh Kishore Mehta | … | Appellant |
| FPA-FE-202/MUM/2010 | ||
| Sh. Bharat R. Kapadia | … | Appellant |
| FPA-FE-153/MUM/2010 | ||
| M/s. Tirumala Impex | … | Appellant |
| FPA-FE-154/MUM/2010 | ||
| Sh. Rais Ahmed | … | Appellant |
| FPA-FE-155/MUM/2010 | ||
| Sh. Ravindra B. Wadher | … | Appellant |
| FPA-FE-215/MUM/2010 | ||
| Sh. Rajat Gupta | … | Appellant |
| FPA-FE-216/MUM/2010 | ||
| M/s. Geekay Exim (I) Ltd. | … | Appellant |
| FPA-FE-217/MUM/2010 | ||
| Sh. Rais Ahmed | … | Appellant |
| FPA-FE-218/MUM/2010 | ||
| Sh. G. K. Rathi | … | Appellant |
| Versus | ||
| The Special Director | ||
Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai |
… | Respondent |
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M/s. Splendour Gems Ltd., Sh. Kishor K. Mehta, Sh. Govindbhai J. Patel, M/s. Beautiful Diamonds, Sh. Kishore Mehta, Sh. Rajesh Kishore Mehta, Sh. Govindbhai J.
- respondent
The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
9 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court