The tribunal adjourned an appeal alleging violation of Section 8(3) of the PMLA due to delayed prosecution complaint. The respondent sought time to verify the filing status before the matter was listed for the next hearing date.
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
MP-PMLA-3215/AHD/2017 (Stay) MP-PMLA-1193/AHD/2014 (Stay) & FPA-PMLA-663/ AHD/2014
Dhaval Pravinchandra Jayswal … Appellant / Applicant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmedabad … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the Appellant : Mr. Chetan K. Pandya, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. N. K. Matta, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER
ORDER 26.10.2018
FPA-PMLA-663/ AHD/2014
This order is passed in continuation with order dated 26th July, 2018. The learned counsel for the appellant states that in view of the amendment in-corporated u/s 8(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which came into effect from 19th April, 2018. However, the respondent has failed to file the prosecution complaint within 90 days. He submits that the appellant is not involved in the scheduled offence. Under these circumstances, his submission is that the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
Sh. N.K. Matta submits that he is not aware as to whether the prosecution complaint has been filed or not. He seeks some time to verify the same and will inform us accordingly on the next date of hearing which is granted.
List the appeal on 7th December, 2018.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(G.C. Mishra) Member
New Delhi, 26th October, 2018 M
FPA-PMLA-663/AHD/2014
Page 1 of 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order should be quashed as the prosecution complaint was filed in violation of the time limit under Section 8(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dhaval Pravinchandra Jayswal
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmedabad
MANMOHAN SINGH
G.C. MISHRA
As recorded by the court registry
9 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
