Allowed

FPA-PMLA-1502/AHD/2016 of Smt. Smitaben D. Gandhi v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmedabad

ATFP24 Apr 2017FPA-PMLA-1502/AHD/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal condoned a delay of over two years in filing an appeal against an impugned order in an MLAT proceeding, accepting the appellant's counsel's failure to file the appeal as a valid explanation, and permitted the case to proceed to trial.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay in appeal allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000 to respondent's counsel.

FPA-PMLA-1502/AHD/2016 of Smt. Smitaben D. Gandhi v/s The… — Company and Corporate | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-2922/AHD/2016 (COD) MP-PMLA-2923/AHD/2016 (Stay) MP-PMLA-2824/AHD/2016 (COD) MP-PMLA-2824/AHD/2016 (Stay) &

¶3

FPA-PMLA-1502/AHD/2016

¶4

Smt. Smitaben D. Gandhi … Appellant/Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmedabad

¶7

… Respondent

¶8

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶9

For the appellant : Shri Nimish M. Kapadia, Advocate For the respondent : Shri S.A. Saud, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA : MEMBER

¶10

ORDER

¶11

24.04.2017

¶12

FPA-PMLA-1502/AHD/2016

¶13

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 7^th August, 2014. Alongwith the appeal, an application for Condonation of Delay has also been filed. The delay is more than two years beyond the prescribed period. It is stated in the application that the appellant engaged Advocate Mr. DR Bhatt to represent themselves before the respondent as well as before this Tribunal. As far as the appeal is concerned it is beyond. They were given a copy of the appeal dated 30^th October, 2014 which is duly signed by the appellant and they have also paid the fee for filing of the appeal Rs. 10,000 for getting the Demand Draft prepared.

¶14

The appellants were given to understand that the appeal was filed before the Tribunal but apparently, the advocate Mr. RD Bhatt did not file the appeal before this Tribunal.

¶15

FPA-PMLA-1502/AHD/2016

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

Later, on coming to know of the position it was noted by the appellants that

¶18

infact, the appeal was not filed.

¶19

The advocate for the appellant has cited following judgments in support of

¶20

the application for Condonation of Delay:-

¶21

LIST OF JUDGMENTS
Sr. Citation Name Ratio Pages
No.
1 . 1999 (2) GCD State of Gujarat If appeal have some 1-3
1290 (GUJ) V/s merit or substance -
Legal Heirs of Condonation of
Ismali. H. Ranza delay to be
considered
liberally -
Explanation of each
day's delay is not
the law now
2. CA No. 4597 of Union .Of India Delay of more than 4-6
2001 In F.ANo. V/S 5 years caused in
631 of 2002 Rameshchandra filing Appeal-
(Gujarat High Joshi Contended if delay
Court) not condoned,
national interest
would suffer- No
prejudice would be
caused to the other
side, if delay
condoned
3. (1998) 7 SCC N. Balakrishnan Discretion of Court - 7-11
123 V/S How to exercise -
M.Krishnamurthy Guidelines stated-
Word "sufficient
cause' should be
construed liberally -
Acceptability of
explanation for the
delay is the sole
criterion, length of
delay as a dilatory
tactic, court should
normally condone
the delay- Non
action on the part of
his advocate
explained as cause
for delay-Appellant's
explanation for the
delay accepted and
delay was condoned
by the trial court-
Not meant to
destroy rights
4. (2002) 4 SCC Municipal Non-appearance of 12-14
458 Corporat. counsel in first
Gwalior appeal plus belated
V/S knowledge of
Ramcharan (dead) judgment -Held,
BY LRS. And there was sufficient
Others cause for condoning
delay
5. (2007) 7 SCC Lai Devi & Non- appearance 15-21
200 Another V/S due to fault of the
Vaneta Jain & counsel and not the
Others party- Non-
appearance of
defendant's counsel
in District Court
despite instruction
of defendant-
Restored

¶22

FPA-PMLA-1502/AHD/2016

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

6.	2013 (3) GLR 2730	Harisinh Bhagwatsinh Sarvaiya V/S State of Gujarat & Anr.	Dismissal of complaint for non- appearance of complainant/his advocate- Held, complainant cannot be punished for mistake of the advocate	22-26
7.	(1969) 2 SCC 770	Lata Mata Din v/s A. Narayan	Mistake of Counsel- Sufficiency- Delay Condoned	27-30
8.	1996 (1) GLH 709	Gujarat State Road Transport Corp. v/s P.D.Solanki	During the proceedings relevant records were not produced due to the negligence of the advocate- Labour Court dismissed- High Court set aside the order of Labour Court in larger interest of justice	31-33
9.	AIR 1981 SC 1400	Rafiq & Another v/s Munshilal & Another	Ex-parte order passed because of non- appearance of advocate- Appeal rejected because of unexplained delay- Held, party should not suffer for the inaction of advocate	34-35

¶25

We have heard the Learned Counsel for both sides. The Learned Counsel

¶26

appearing on behalf of the Respondent has not been denied the fact that the Bank Draft was prepared for filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, however he submits that atleast the concerned advocate should have filed the affidavit and explained the position as well as, it was the duty of the appellant to check-up the status of the appeal. After small submission Learned Counsel for the Respondent has not denied the merit of the case is to be considered by this Tribunal. He says if the delay is condoned, heavy costs should be imposed for which appellant’s counsel has no objection. Normally, we would have not allowed the prayer for Condonation of such a long delay. However, in view of the reasons given in the application and in the interests of justice, the prayer for Condonation of Delay is allowed subject to cost of Rs. 25,000/-. The Cost shall be paid by the appellant to the Learned Counsel

¶27

for the Respondent within four weeks.

¶28

FPA-PMLA-1502/AHD/2016

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

The application is disposed off accordingly.

¶31

FPA-PMLA-1502/AHD/2016

¶32

Issue notice to the Respondent. Mr. S.A. Saud, Advocate learned counsel for the respondent accepts the notice. Let the reply be filed within six weeks with an advance copy to the counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder within four weeks thereafter. We may clarify that the notice in

¶33

the appeal is issued subject to the cost.

¶34

List the appeal for consideration on 31^st August, 2017.

¶35

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶36