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
FPA-PMLA-2106/CHN/2017
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai … Appellant/Applicant
Versus
Shri Ashok M. Jain & Others.
… Respondents
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
| For the Appellant | : | Mr. Neeraj Atri, Advocate |
|---|---|---|
| For the Respondent | : | Mr. Ashwani Taneja, Advocate Mr. Palash Bhatkotti, Advocate |
| For the Respondent No. 4 | : | Mr. Shiv Ahlawat, Advocate |
| For the Respondent No. 5 | : | Ms. Mansi Sood, Advocate |
| CORAM | ||
| SHRI G. C. MISHRA | : | MEMBER |
| ORD 19.07.2 |
ER 019 |
FPA-PMLA-2106/CHN/2017
Reply filed by the respondent no. 4 is already on record. There is no reply by respondent no. 1 to 3 & 5 available on record. In the interest of justice, one more opportunity is granted to respondent nos. to 3 & 5 to file their replies within four weeks with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder within four week thereafter. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.5 that she could not file the reply because the Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) are yet to be supplied to her and the reply will be filed after the receipt of the RUDs.
List on 13th December, 2019.
(G. C. Mishra) Member
New Delhi, 19th July, 2019 ‘AS’ FPA-PMLA-2106/CHN/2017
Page 1 of 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant cursory time to respondent nos. 3 & 5 to file replies after missing their filing timelines.
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai
Shri Ashok M. Jain
Others
As recorded by the court registry
11 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
