The tribunal allowed time for the appellant to file a rejoinder after the respondent filed its reply and directed the filing of written synopses. The matter was listed for future hearing.
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-1828/DLI/2017 Shalini Srivastava … Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Director, … Respondent Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellant : Mr. Dipak Seth, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Atul Tripathi, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER
ORDER 22.02.2018
FPA-PMLA-1828/DLI/2017
Reply has been filed by the respondent in the registry. Copy of same
has been handedover to the counsel for the appellant who seeks time to file the rejoinder. Let the same be done within four weeks.
List on 5th July, 2018.
Both the parties will also file the written synopsis.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(G.C. Mishra) Member
New Delhi, 22nd February, 2018.
‘K’
FPA-PMLA-1828/DLI/2017 Page 1 of 1
Shalini Srivastava
The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi
Manmohan Singh
G.C. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
