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
| 1. MP- PMLA-1964/HYD/2015 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1041/HYD/2015 |
|
|---|---|
| Lepakshi Knowledge HUB Pvt. Ltd. … |
Applicant/Appellant |
| Versus | |
| The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad … |
Respondent |
| 2. MP- PMLA-1965/HYD/2015 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1042/HYD/2015 |
|
| Lepakshi Science & Technology Pvt. Ltd. … |
Applicant/Appellant |
| Versus | |
| The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad … |
Respondent |
| 3. MP- PMLA-1966/HYD/2015 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1043/HYD/2015 |
|
| Lepakshi Heritage Wellness Village Pvt. Ltd… | Applicant/Appellant |
| Versus | |
| The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad … |
Respondent |
| 4. MP- PMLA-1967/HYD/2015 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1044/HYD/2015 |
|
| Lepakshi Integrated Textile Park Pvt. Ltd. … | Applicant/Appellant |
| Versus | |
| The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad … |
Respondent |
| 5. MP- PMLA-1968/HYD/2015 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1045/HYD/2015 |
|
| Asara Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. … |
Applicant/Appellant |
| Versus | |
| The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad … |
Respondent |
| Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appe | ared |
| For the Appellants : Mr. Risha |
v Ambastha, Proxy counsel |
| On behalf | of Mr. Yogesh Raavi, Advocate |
| For the Respondent : Mr. Moha |
mmad Faraz, Advocate |
| FPA-PMLA-1041-1045/HYD/2015 | Page 1 of 2 |
Page 1 of 2
CORAM SHRI G. C. MISHRA : ACTING CHAIRMAN
ORDER 04.11.2019
FPA-PMLA-1041-1045/HYD/2015
Shri Rishav Ambastha, Proxy counsel appearing on behalf of the main arguing counsel for the appellant is present. Shri Mohammad Faraz, learned counsel for the respondent is also present. It is requested by the proxy counsel appearing for the appellants to grant adjournment as the main counsel is busy in a part heard matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which is not opposed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that he has also filed the written synopsis in the Registry but the same is not on record. Registry is directed to trace out the same and place it on record. In the event it is not traceable, learned counsel for the respondent has agreed to file another copy of the written synopsis in the Registry within four weeks.
The appellants are also directed to file the written synopsis by the next date.
List on 19th March, 2020.
(G. C. Mishra) Acting Chairman
New Delhi, 04th November, 2019
‘AS’
FPA-PMLA-1041-1045/HYD/2015
Page 2 of 2
Lepakshi Knowledge HUB Pvt. Ltd. and others
The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad
G. C. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
17 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
