DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT vs Suresh Raj — 200001/2023
Case under Crl.mp/1/2026 Classification : Advance Application Section DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. Status: Call on. Next hearing: 08th May 2026.
SC(PMLA) - SESSIONS CASE (PMLA)
CNR: KLER160000012023
Next Hearing
08th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
200001/2023
Filing Date
21-09-2023
Registration No
200001/2023
Registration Date
21-09-2023
Court
Special Court SPE.CBI-II, Ernakulam
Judge
1-Spl.Judge CBI-2
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Adv. SANTHOSH.M.J
Respondent(s)
Suresh Raj
Satkunam @ Sabeshan
Adv. ANJALA NAZRIN SUBAIR
Ramesh A
Loku Yaddehige Nishantha @ L.Y.Nishantha @ Sudda
Soudarajan @ Soundar
L.Y Nandana
Dadallage Nissanka
S A Namesh Cullaka Senarth
Thilanka Madushan Ranasingha
H.K.G.B Janaka Dasppriya
A H S Mendis Sunasekara
Ahamed Fasly
Kartik Raja
Thatheeswaran R @ Nakulan
John Paul
Chandran S
Nona Pirosha @ Jasmine
Sudarshini S
M/s. Puthiya Uthayam Gobika Enterprises
C Lakshmipathi
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Spl.Judge CBI-2
Call on
For objecting and hearing CMP
Hearing on Charge
Extension of remand
Hearing on Charge
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 13-04-2026 | Call on | |
| 07-04-2026 | For objecting and hearing CMP | |
| 09-03-2026 | Hearing on Charge | |
| 25-02-2026 | Extension of remand | |
| 02-02-2026 | Hearing on Charge |
Interim Orders
Case Summary The Special Court for PMLA Cases (Ernakulam) granted the Enforcement Directorate's petition to split the case against Accused No. 4 (Loku Yaddehige Nishantha) and Accused No. 18. The court found that despite earnest efforts, the whereabouts of these two accused could not be traced, and therefore ordered the case against them to be split up to allow proceedings to continue against the other accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Special Court for PMLA Cases (Ernakulam) granted the Enforcement Directorate's petition to split the case against Accused No. 4 (Loku Yaddehige Nishantha) and Accused No. 18. The court found that despite earnest efforts, the whereabouts of these two accused could not be traced, and therefore ordered the case against them to be split up to allow proceedings to continue against the other accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts