Disposed

FPA-PMLA-1619/ HYD/2017 of Jella Jagan Mohan Reddy v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad

ATFP26 Nov 2018FPA-PMLA-1619/ HYD/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants challenged the prosecution complaint under PMLA claiming it was time-barred following Principal Judge CBI Hyderabad's directions. The court noted non-re filing and set a fresh hearing date.

What did the court decide?

Matter re-notified for 17th December 2018; Respondent directed to produce prosecution complaint and documents.

FPA-PMLA-1619/ HYD/2017 of Jella Jagan Mohan Reddy v/s The… — Banking and Recovery | ATFP (2018)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR SAFEMA, FEMA, PMLA, NDPS, PBPT Act AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3190/HYD/2017 (Stay) MP-PMLA-3095/HYD/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1619/ HYD/2017 Jella Jagan Mohan Reddy … Appellant

¶3

Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad … Respondent MP-PMLA-2979/HYD/2016 (Stay) MP-PMLA-2980/HYD/2016 (Exem.) FPA-PMLA-1579/ HYD/2016 Bharati Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd … Appellant Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad … Respondent

¶4

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶5

For the appellant : Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Ms. Shreya Seth, Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocates For the respondent : Mr. Atul Tripathi, Advocate for Mohd. Faraz, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN

¶6

ORDER 26.11.2018

¶7

FPA-PMLA-1619/ HYD/2017 & FPA-PMLA-1579/ HYD/2016

¶8

Mr. Bhaskar Naidu Kondeti, I.O. has filed the affidavit to the application filed by the appellants. The appellants state that prosecution complaint filed by the respondent is not within the limitation of time as per amendment carried on 19^th April, 2018. In para 2 of affidavit it is admitted by the I.O. that the respondent prosecution complaint was presented before the Principal Judge, CBI at Hyderabad on 16^th July, 2018 and thereafter certain observations was made about the missing signature and the complaint was return to the respondent to

¶9

FPA-PMLA-1619/HYD/2017 & FPA-PMLA-1579/ HYD/2016 Page 1 of 2

¶10

comply the same by the 6^th September, 2018. The Assistant Directorate who is present in court admits that the same has not been re-filed and order is not strictly complied with passed by Principal Judge, CBI court Hyderabad, however, the same may be re-filed very shortly.

¶11

He states that it is for the Principal Judge to take the view as to whether the complaint is now time barred or not.

¶12

Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Advocate submits that despite of the direction issued by the Principal Court to remove the objection and re-filed the same by 16^th September, 2018. The same has not been done therefore the prosecution complaint is become time barred. In view of prescribed period of time provided in section 8(3) of the Act.

¶13

Main arguing counsel Mr. Faraz, Advocate on behalf of the respondent is not available.

¶14

Re-notify the matter for 17^th December, 2018.

¶15

Respondent is directed to produce the copy of the prosecution complaint

¶16

as well as documents on the next date of hearing.

¶17

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶18

New Delhi,

¶19

26^th November, 2018

¶20

¶21

FPA-PMLA-1619/HYD/2017 & FPA-PMLA-1579/ HYD/2016

¶22

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-1619/ HYD/2017 of Jella Jagan Mohan Reddy v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1619/ HYD/2017 of Jella Jagan Mohan Reddy v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases