An interlocutory order where the applicant's counsel appeared and the respondent's counsel was unavailable. Parties permitted to file written synopses before the next hearing date.
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, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI
FPA-PMLA-1436/JP/2016
Aruna Sharma & Anr. … Appellants/Applicants Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Jaipur … Respondents
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellant : Mr. S.A. Saud, Advocate For the respondent : Ms. Sanjana Rajput, Adv. Proxy for Mr. Vikas Garg, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER
ORDER 18.01.2018
FPA-PMLA-1436/JP/2016
Mr. S. A. Saud appeared on behalf of the appellant. Main arguing
counsel on behalf of the Respondent Mr. Vikas Garg, is not available.
List on 25th April, 2018.
Both the parties are allowed to file the written synopsis before the next date of hearing.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(G.C. Mishra) Member
New Delhi, 18th January, 2018 ‘s’
FPA-PMLA-1436/JP/2016
Page 1 of 1
Aruna Sharma & Anr.
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Jaipur
MANMOHAN SINGH
G.C. MISHRA
As recorded by the court registry
11 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
