DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT THROUGH ASST DIRECTOR DILIP KUMAR vs SAKET SUHAS GOKHALE Advocate - S VATSA — 2/2023
Case under Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 Section 3,4. Status: EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION. Next hearing: 03rd June 2026.
PMLA - SPECIAL CASE - PMLA
CNR: GJAH010020302023
Next Hearing
03rd June 2026
Filing Number
2/2023
Filing Date
24-03-2023
Registration No
2/2023
Registration Date
24-03-2023
Court
Ahmedabad District
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT THROUGH ASST DIRECTOR DILIP KUMAR
Adv. S V THAKKAR
Respondent(s)
SAKET SUHAS GOKHALE Advocate - S VATSA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-05-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 15-05-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 06-05-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 23-04-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 16-04-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Interim Orders
Summary: PMLA Case No. 2/2023 Outcome: The court rejected the accused's application to stay the PMLA trial proceedings. Saket Suhas Gokhale sought to keep the trial in abeyance pending the outcome of a High Court challenge to the predicate offense charges, arguing the PMLA case would not survive if he was acquitted/discharged. The Principal District Judge found no statutory bar to proceeding with PMLA trial independently and dismissed the application as lacking merit, noting both cases were at the charge-framing stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: PMLA Case No. 2/2023 Outcome: The court rejected the accused's application to stay the PMLA trial proceedings. Saket Suhas Gokhale sought to keep the trial in abeyance pending the outcome of a High Court challenge to the predicate offense charges, arguing the PMLA case would not survive if he was acquitted/discharged. The Principal District Judge found no statutory bar to proceeding with PMLA trial independently and dismissed the application as lacking merit, noting both cases were at the charge-framing stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts