FPA-FE-52/MUM/2011 of M/s. Splendour Gems Ltd. v/s The Special Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai
ATFPFPA-FE-52/MUM/2011
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
Mention of an order re-notified on July, 2018. The bench notes it is incomplete as the Chairman is engaged elsewhere.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT AT NEW DELHI
¶2
| 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
AI extract
- appellant
M/s. Splendour Gems Ltd. and others
- respondent
The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai
Coram
AI extract
Manmohan Singh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- ATFP
- Decided on
- · May
- Case no.
- FPA-FE-52/MUM/2011
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
9 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court