Disposed

FPA-PMLA-2381/BNG/2018 of v. Bhaskar v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore

ATFP12 Sept 2018FPA-PMLA-2381/BNG/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim matter under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, the Tribunal noted a Karnataka High Court stay order lacked further extension and recorded failure by the appellant to file writ copies. Three weeks were granted for a rejoinder, and the matter was listed for November 1, 2018.

What did the court decide?

Three weeks granted for filing a rejoinder; appellant directed to submit writ petition copies immediately or face an adverse note; matter listed on November 1, 2018.

FPA-PMLA-2381/BNG/2018 of v. Bhaskar v/s The Joint Director… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2018)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-4611/BNG/2018 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-2381/BNG/2018

¶3

V. Bhaskar

¶4

… Appellant/Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Joint Director

¶7

Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore

¶8

… Respondent

¶9

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶10

For the appellant	: Shri B. Raghunath, Advocate. Shri Sriram Parakkat, Adv.
For the respondent	: Shri N.K. Matta, Advocate
CORAM
SMT. ANANYA RAY	: MEMBER

¶11

ORDER

¶12

12.09.2018

¶13

FPA-PMLA-2381/BNG/2018

¶14

The learned counsel for the appellant has produced the order dated 5.7.2018 of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition no. 27744/2018 which states that “ respondent shall not take precipitative action pursuant to the impugned notice till next date of hearing . Re-list on 9.07.2018.”

¶15

However, it appears that there is no further extension of stay beyond 09.07.2018, although the case had come up in the court on number of occasions after that. Hence it cannot be said that there is any stay of the Karnataka High Court presently. The appellants were asked to submit copies of the writ petition repeatedly on the last two occasion but they have till date failed to do so. They are directed to submit the same immediately to the Registry with a copy to the Respondents otherwise this Bench will be constrained to take an adverse note.

¶16

The learned counsel for the respondent states that they have filed

¶17

the reply to the appeal to which the counsel for the appellant seeks

¶18

FPA-PMLA-2381/BNG/2018 Page 1 of 2

¶19

sometime to file the rejoinder which was served on 6^th September, 2018 on them. Three weeks time from today is granted to file the rejoinder.

¶20

Copy of the order dated 5^th July, 2018 passed by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court was given to the respondent today in the court.

¶21

Respondent to also bring forth the facts with regard to the stay order passed by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court on or before the next date of hearing.

¶22

List on 1^st November, 2018.

¶23

(Ananya Ray) Member

¶24

New Delhi, 12^th September, 2018

¶25

‘s’

¶26

FPA-PMLA-2381/BNG/2018

¶27

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-2381/BNG/2018 of v. Bhaskar v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-2381/BNG/2018 of v. Bhaskar v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases