Partly allowed

FPA-PMLA-1953/DLI/2017 of Shiv Murat Dwivedi v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

ATFP27 Oct 2017FPA-PMLA-1953/DLI/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal for Prevention of Money Laundering Act, New Delhi, examined an application for condonation of delay of 728 days in filing an appeal. The appellant cited medical conditions and prosecution pendency. The Tribunal allowed the condonation subject to payment of ₹20,000 to the respondent, listing the matter for hearing on 4th December 2017.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 728 days allowed subject to payment of ₹20,000 to respondent's counsel.

FPA-PMLA-1953/DLI/2017 of Shiv Murat Dwivedi v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi — ATFP (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-PMLA-3846/DLI/217 (Stay) MP-PMLA-3847/DLI/217 (COD) FPA-PMLA-1953/DLI/2017

¶3

Shiv Murat Dwivedi … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi … Respondent

¶4

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶5

For the appellant : Shri Chirag Jamwal and Sh. Ajay Upadhyay, Advocates For the respondent : Ms. Shilpi Satyapriya Satya, Advocate

¶6

CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN

¶7

ORDER

¶8

27.10.2017

¶9

FPA-PMLA-1953/DLI/2017

¶10

The learned counsel for the appellant seeks two weeks time to file affidavit for enjoying the property. Let the affidavit be filed by the wife of the appellant. In case, the property in question enjoys by the tenant and there is an agreement/lease between the parties, let the same be filed along with the affidavit within two weeks.

¶11

Along with the appeal, the present application for condonation of delay has been filed. There is a delay of 728 days in filing the appeal. The reason for the delay are mentioned in para 2 to 5 of the application.

¶12

The same read as under:-

¶13

2. That the Appellant since 2012 is suffering from neurological disorder, diabetes, hypertension, high blood pressure and insomnia. The medical documents of the Appellant have already been submitted before the concerned MCOCA Court, Saket. The Appellant has been time and again granted bail by the Ld. Sessions Court on the medical grounds.

¶14

3. That since 2015 the medical condition of the Appellant has become worse. Due to shortage of funds the Appellant is not able to undergo necessary surgeries. The Appellant frequently suffers from severe headache, no sensation, twitching on the left side of his face. Due to insomnia also the

¶15

FPA-PMLA-1953/DLI/2017 Page 1 of 2

¶16

Appellant is suffering immensely. The pendency of various prosecutions have further worsened the condition of the Appellant.

¶17

4. That the Appellant is a victim of false and baseless prosecution. The Appellant has a good case on merits and is likely to succeed.

¶18

5. That due to the reasons mentioned above, the Appellant was not able to file the present appeal in time. The said delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. However, if the present application for condonation of delay is not allowed, grave and irreversible damage shall be caused to the Appellant.

¶19

The medical documents have also been filed by the appellant in order to show the sufficient cause.

¶20

No reply has been filed. However, the learned counsel for the respondent strongly oppose the prayer of the applicant. She has also referred two judgements vide Civil appeal No. 2909-2913 of 2005 in the case of Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by Lrs vs. State of A.P. & Ors on 24 February, 2011 and the other in Civil Appeal no. 6974 of 2013 in the case of Basawaraj & Anr Vs. Spl. Laq Officer on 22 August, 2013. There is a sufficient cause shown on behalf of the appellant, therefore, this Tribunal is agreeable to condone the delay subject to condone as there is a huge delay in filing the appeal as the appellant is still in custody and his valuable rights are invoked. This Tribunal has condoned the delay subject to Rs. 20,000/- which shall be paid by the appellant to the learned counsel for the respondent on or before the next date of hearing.

¶21

List on 4^th December, 2017.

¶22

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶23

New Delhi, 27^th October, 2017 M

¶24

FPA-PMLA-1953/DLI/2017

¶25

Page 2 of 2

FPA-PMLA-1953/DLI/2017 of Shiv Murat Dwivedi v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1953/DLI/2017 of Shiv Murat Dwivedi v/s The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases