The Appellate Tribunal adjourned the issue of time-barred filing of a prosecution complaint under the PMLA, acknowledging the delay beyond the 90-day limit and listing the matter for arguments.
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, NDPS, PMLA & PBPT ACT AT NEW DELHI
MP-PMLA-4968/SRT/2018 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-2555/SRT/2018
M/s. Nakoda Ltd. & Ors. … Appellants Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Surat … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the Appellant : Mr. Chetan K. Pandya, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Mohd. Faraz, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER
ORDER 16.07.2019
FPA-PMLA-2555/SRT/2018
The ld. counsel for the respondent admits that the prosecution complaint has been filed but not within the prescribed period of 90 days. List this matter for arguments on this issue on 23rd August, 2019.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(G.C. Mishra) Member
New Delhi, 16th July, 2019
‘s’
FPA-PMLA-2555/SRT/2018
Page 1 of 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the prosecution complaint was filed within the prescribed period of 90 days as per Section 29(2) of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002.
M/s. Nakoda Ltd. & Ors.
The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Surat
Manmohan Singh
G.C. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
10 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
