The bench stayed adjudication proceedings to compel the respondent to produce the FIR, charge-sheet, and the original record containing reasons to believe. Adjourned for next date for filing written synopsis and document production.
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 FOR SAFEMA, FEMA, PMLA, NDPS & PBPT ACT AT NEW DELHI
(1) MP-PMLA-3801/LKW/2017 (u/s 35) MP-PMLA-3704/LKW/2017 (stay) FPA-PMLA-1885/LKW/2017
| M/s JSP Projects Pvt. Ltd. | … | Appellant |
|---|---|---|
| Versus | ||
| The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow |
… | Respondent |
| (2) FPA-PMLA-1881/LKW/2017 | ||
| Sh. Jambu Prasad Jain Versus |
… | Appellant |
| The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow |
… | Respondent |
| (3) FPA-PMLA-1882/LKW/2017 | ||
| Smt. Reetu Jain | … | Appellant |
| Versus | ||
| The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow |
… | Respondent |
| (4) FPA-PMLA-1883/LKW/2017 | ||
| Smt. Swati Jain | … | Appellant |
| Versus | ||
| The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow |
… | Respondent |
| (5) FPA-PMLA-1884/LKW/2017 | ||
| Sh. Sanjay Jain | … | Appellant |
| Versus | ||
| The Joint Director | ||
| Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow | … | Respondent |
FPA-PMLA-1881-1886/LKW/2017
Page 1 of 3
(6) FPA-PMLA-1886/LKW/2017
Sh. Pankaj Jain … Appellant Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellant : Shri Manish Gupta, Advocate Shri Rohit Tomar, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Nitesh Rana, Advocate
CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER
ORDER 28.11.2018
FPA-PMLA-1881-1886/LKW/2017
Mr. Rana, the learned counsel for the respondent states that he has verified the position from the office of ED who states that no contrary report is available on record. As far as contrary to the report of IIT, if any is concerned, Mr. Rana is not aware about the same. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the counsel appearing before the CBI Court has made the statement that no such report is available in the application under section 91 of Cr.P.C.
Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the appeal is to be decided on merit. Both the parties are allowed to file the written synopsis by the next date. The respondent shall produce the following documents:-
believe.
FPA-PMLA-1881-1886/LKW/2017
Page 2 of 3
The entire record from the office of Adjudicating Authority shall also
be summoned by the next date.
List on 6th March, 2019.
Interim order to continue.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(G.C. Mishra) Member
New Delhi, 28th November, 2018
‘D’
FPA-PMLA-1881-1886/LKW/2017
Page 3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal on merits can proceed given the lack of an inspection report from the Investigation Officer.
What documents should the Adjudicating Authority produce to verify the reasons to believe.
Whether the proceedings can be continued while awaiting the response from the Enforcement Directorate.
M/s JSP Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Jambu Prasad Jain
Swati Jain
Reetu Jain
Sanjay Jain
Pankaj Jain
Manmohan Singh
G.C. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
13 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
