Single appearance before the PMMLA Adjudicating Authority in New Delhi where appellants sought time to file written synopsis regarding objections to reasons to believe. The court listed the matter for future orders without analytic reasoning or final adjudication.
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-3809/MUM/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1988/MUM/2017 |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Satyen Suresh Gathani | … Appellant/Applicant |
||
| **2. ** | MP-PMLA-3965/MUM/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-2047/MUM/2017 |
||
| Raj Agarwal | … Appellant/Applicant |
||
| **3. ** | MP-PMLA-3967/MUM/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-2048/MUM/2017 |
||
| Pankaj Agarwal | … Appellant/Applicant |
||
| **4. ** | MP-PMLA-3986/MUM/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-2059/MUM/2017 |
||
| Kailash Chandan | … Appellant/Applicant |
||
| **5. ** | FPA-PMLA-2108/MUM/2017 | ||
| Bharat Rajmal Shah | … Appellant/Applicant |
||
| **6. ** | MP-PMLA-3929/MUM/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-2004/MUM/2017 |
||
| M/s Worldwide Oilfield Machine Pvt. | Ltd. | … Appellant/Applicant |
|
| **7. ** | MP-PMLA-3931/MUM/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-2005/MUM/2017 |
||
| Mangesh Annachhatara | … Appellant/Applicant |
||
| **8. ** | MP-PMLA-3933/MUM/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-2006/MUM/2017 |
||
| Sudhir Puranik | … Appellant/Applicant |
||
| **9. ** | MP-PMLA-3937/MUM/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-2007/MUM/2017 |
||
| Rahul Ranka | … | Appellant/Applicant | |
| 10. | MP-PMLA-3935/MUM/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-2008/MUM/2017 |
||
| Dinesh Mehta | … Appellant/Applicant |
||
| Versus | |||
| The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai |
… Respondent |
||
| Advo | cates/Authorized Representatives | who | appeared |
| For t | he appellant no. 1 : | Mr. | Samrat Nigam, Advocate |
| FPA-PM | LA-1988,2047,2048,2059,2108,2004,2005,2006,2007 & | 2008/ | MUM/2017 Page 1 of 2 |
For the appellant no. 2 to 4 : Ms. Surabhi Dham, Advocate For the appellant no. 5 : Mr. Yash Anand, Advocate For the appellant no. 6 to 8 : Mr. Siddarth Aggarwala, Advocate Ms. Manali Singhal, Advocate Ms. Arti Singh, Ms. Chitra, Mr. Nikhil Pillai, Mr. Santosh Sachin, Mr. Sougat Mishra, Advocates For the appellant no. 9 & 10 : None For the respondent : Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN
ORDER 07.01.2019
FPA-PMLA-1988,2047,2048,2059,2108,2004,2005,2006,2007 & 2008/MUM/2017
With regard to objection pertaining to reasons to believe on behalf of the appellant have made their respective submissions. They seek time to file written synopsis within two weeks.
List for orders on 25th February, 2019.
Inspecting Officer (I.O.) submits that the copy of the reasons to believe is already handed over on the last date. The original are same is lying in the file which is produced. The same has been returned to I.O. who submits that the substantial part of reasons to believe are referred in the provisional attachment orders passed by the E.D.
(Justice Manmohan Singh)
Chairman
New Delhi, 7th January, 2019
‘S’
FPA-PMLA-1988,2047,2048,2059,2108,2004,2005,2006,2007 & 2008/MUM/2017
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether time should be granted to file written synopsis regarding objections to reasons to believe.
Satyen Suresh Gathani et al.
Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai
Manmohan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
