This order lists multiple pending applications for stay in PMLA matters before the Appellate Tribunal. The bench deferred disposal to the next hearing date after noting procedural issues regarding the supply of 'reason to believe' documents.
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 FOR SAFEMA, FEMA, PMLA, NDPS & PBPT ACT AT NEW DELHI
| (1) MP-PMLA-3809/MUM/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1988/MUM/2017 |
||
|---|---|---|
| Satyen Suresh Gathani |
… | Appellant /applicant |
Versus |
||
| The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai |
… | Respondent |
| (2) MP-PMLA-3965/MUM/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-2047/MUM/2017 |
||
| Raj Agarwal |
… | Appellant /applicant |
Versus |
||
| The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai |
… | Respondent |
| (3) MP-PMLA-3967/MUM/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-2048/MUM/2017 |
||
| Pankaj Agarwal |
… | Appellant /applicant |
Versus |
||
| The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai |
… | Respondent |
| (4) MP-PMLA-3986/MUM/2017 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-2059/MUM/2017 |
||
| Kailash Chandan |
… | Appellant /applicant |
Versus |
||
| The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai |
… | Respondent |
| (5) FPA-PMLA-2108/MUM/2017 | ||
| Bharat Rajmal Shah |
… | Appellant /applicant |
Versus |
||
| The Deputy Director, | ||
| Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai | … | Respondent |
FPA-PMLA-1988, 2047, 2048, 2059, 2108, 2004-2008/MUM/2018
Page 1 of 3
| (6) MP-PMLA-3929/MUM/2017 (Stay) MP-PMLA-3930/MUM/2017 (Exm.) FPA-PMLA-2004/MUM/2017 |
||
|---|---|---|
| M/s. Worldwide Oilfield Machine Pvt. Ltd. |
… | Appellant /applicant |
| Versus | ||
| The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai |
… | Respondent |
| (7) MP-PMLA-3931/MUM/2017 (Stay) MP-PMLA-3932/MUM/2017 (Exm.) FPA-PMLA-2005/MUM/2017 |
||
| Mangesh Annachhatara | … | Appellant /applicant |
| Versus | ||
| The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai |
… | Respondent |
| (8) MP-PMLA-3933/MUM/2017 (Stay) MP-PMLA-3934/MUM/2017 (Exm.) FPA-PMLA-2006/MUM/2017 |
||
| Sudhir Puranik | … | Appellant /applicant |
| Versus | ||
| The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai |
… | Respondent |
| (9) MP-PMLA-3937/MUM/2017 (Stay) MP-PMLA-3938/MUM/2017 (Exm.) FPA-PMLA-2007/MUM/2017 |
||
| Rahul Ranka | … | Appellant /applicant |
| Versus | ||
| The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai |
… | Respondent |
| (10) MP-PMLA-3935/MUM/2017 (Stay) MP-PMLA-3936/MUM/2017 (Exm.) FPA-PMLA-2008/MUM/2017 |
||
| Dinesh Mehta | … | Appellant /applicant |
| Versus | ||
| The Deputy Director | ||
| , Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai |
… | Respondent |
FPA-PMLA-1988, 2047, 2048, 2059, 2108, 2004-2008/MUM/2018
Page 2 of 3
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
| For the Appellant | : |
Shri Samrat Nigam, Advocate Shri Abhimanyu Walia, Surabhi Dhar, Shri Yash Anand, Advocate Malvika Kalra, Santosh Sachin, Ms. Manali Singhal, Siddharth Aggarwal, Mr. Aditya & Debopriya, Advocates |
|---|---|---|
| For the Respondent | : | Shri S.K. Sharma, Advocate |
| CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH |
: |
CHAIRMAN |
| ORDER 08.04.201 |
9 |
FPA-PMLA-1988, 2047, 2048, 2059,2108, 2004 to 2008/MUM/2017
Despite of order passed of this Court, copy of reason to believe have not been supplied to the counsel for the appellants. The counsel for the respondent states that order has been challenged by the Mumbai High court. I.O shall remain present on the next date of hearing.
List on 27th May, 2019.
Later on Shri Umesh Kumar, Assistant Director, ED present and
marked his presence.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
New Delhi,
8th April, 2019
‘D’
FPA-PMLA-1988, 2047, 2048, 2059, 2108, 2004-2008/MUM/2018
Page 3 of 3
Satyen Suresh Gathani
Raj Agarwal
Pankaj Agarwal
Kailash Chandan
Bharat Rajmal Shah
The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai
MANMOHAN SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
11 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
