Disposed

FPA-16/BOM/2007 of Yogesh D. Mehta v/s The Competent Authority, Mumbai

ATFP6 Dec 2016FPA-16/BOM/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal for non-prosecution and subsequently restored it upon condoning a three-month delay caused by the appellant's chronic liver illness. Both miscellaneous petitions relating to the restoration and condonation were disposed of. A hearing for remaining arguments in a separate quashing petition was listed for the future.

What did the court decide?

The prayers for condonation of delay and restoration of appeal accepted; miscellaneous petitions disposed of; fallacious arguments on FPA-16/BOM/2007 deferred.

FPA-16/BOM/2007 of Yogesh D. Mehta v/s The… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | ATFP (2016)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-1/BOM/2015(COD of app.) MP-47/BOM/2014( Rest.) FPA-16/BOM/2007

¶3

Yogesh D. Mehta … Appellant/Applicant

¶4

Versus

¶5

The Competent Authority, Mumbai

¶6

… Respondent

¶7

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶8

For the appellant	: Shri Asmita A. Nayak , Advocate Shri Ranjeet K. Rajan, Advocate
For the respondent	: Shri R.N. D’souza. J.C.
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	: CHAIRMAN
SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA	: MEMBER
SHRI ANAND KISHORE	: MEMBER

¶9

ORDER

¶10

06.12.2016

¶11

MP-47/BOM/2014 ( Rest.) & MP-1/BOM/2015

¶12

Both applications have been filed for above mentioned appeal for quashing of order dated 22^nd October, 2007. The appeal was dismissed for non prosecution on 10^th February, 2014. The order was received by the appellant on 28^th March, 2014. The miscellaneous petition being MP47/BOM/2014 for restoration of appeal was filed on 8^th July, 2014. Thereafter the appellant has filed another application being MP1/BOM/2015 dated 9^th January, 2015 for condonation of delay in filing the Restoration application. In the said application the appellant has explained the grounds in order to justify the delay in filing the restoration application. In the application, it has stated by the appellant no. 1 that he was suffering from chronic hepatitis with focal bridging fibrosis and cirrhosis of liver and has been going treatment of the same till date.

¶13

FPA-16/BOM/2007

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

The learned for the respondent submits that although the details of illness has mentioned in the Para. 4 and 5 of the application, as far as the aspect of condonation of delay in the above is concerned, he leave it to the Tribunal to decide the same. Though there is delay in filing the application for restoration of appeal as the order was received by appellant on 28^th March, 2014, and the application filed on 9^th July, 2014. But considering the facts and circumstance of the matter, in the interest of justice, the reasons of delay are accepted in filing the application for condonation of delay. The Prayer is accepted. The appeal is restored to it’s original number. Both Miscellaneous petitions are disposed of.

¶16

FPA-16/BOM/2007

¶17

The learned counsel for the appellant has made her submission for some time.

¶18

List for remaining arguments on 11^th April, 2017.

¶19

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶20

(Kaushal Srivastava) Member

¶21

(Anand Kishore)

¶22

Member

¶23

New Delhi, 6^th December, 2016

¶24

‘s’

¶25

FPA-16/BOM/2007

¶26

Page 2 of 2

FPA-16/BOM/2007 of Yogesh D. Mehta v/s The Competent Authority, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-16/BOM/2007 of Yogesh D. Mehta v/s The Competent Authority, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases