The Appeal Tribunal allowed time for the respondent to file a reply to the appellant's application for condonation of delay. The appellant was in custody when the impugned order was received.
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-4204/LKW/2018 (COD) FPA-PMLA-4205/LKW/2018 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-2142/LKW/2018
Yadav Singh … Appellant/Applicant
Versus
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow
… Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
| For the appellant | : Sh. Mr. Ibad Mushtaq, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For the Respondent | : Mr. Nitesh Rana, Advocate |
| CORAM | |
| JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH | : CHAIRMAN |
| MRS. ANANYA RAY | : MEMBER |
ORDER 23.02.2018
FPA-PMLA-4204/LKW/2018 (COD)
The present appeal has been filed against the order dt. 30th June, 2017. Alongiwth the appeal the application for condonation of delay has been filed. The counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is in custody and the impugned order was received only in October, 2017. Mr. Nitesh Rana, Advocate counsel for the respondent seeks time to file the reply to the condonation of delay application. Let the same be filed within four weeks with an advance copy to the counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder four weeks thereafter.
List on 6th July, 2018.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(Ananya Ray) Member New Delhi, 23rd February, 2018. ‘s’
FPA-PMLA-2142/LKW/2018
Page 1 of 1
Yadav Singh
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow
Manmohan Singh
Ananya Ray
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
