Single-member Tribunal restored six appeals filed in default of non-prosecution, finding no intentional default on the appellants counsel.
The appeals are restored. No cost is imposed. Matter listed for hearing on 7th January, 2020.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR SAFEMA, FEMA, PMLA, NDPS, PBPT ACT AT NEW DELHI
| (1) MP-247/BOM/2019 (Resto) | ||
|---|---|---|
| MP-52/BOM/2014 (Stay) FPA-11/BOM/2014 |
||
| Bhanumati Kapadia | … | Appellant |
| (2) MP-248/MUM/2019 (Resto) MP-218/MUM/2018 (Stay) FPA-101/MUM/2018 |
||
| Shri Himanshu J. Kapadia | … | Appellant |
| (3) MP-249/MUM/2019 (Resto) MP-219/MUM/2018 (Stay) FPA-102/MUM/2018 |
||
| Smt. Gitaben R. Kapadia | … | Appellant |
| (4) MP-250/MUM/2019 (Resto) MP-220/MUM/2018 (Stay) FPA-103/MUM/2018 |
||
| Smt. Kuksumben A. Kapadia | … | Appellant |
| (5) MP-251/MUM/2019 (Resto) MP-221/MUM/2018 (Stay) FPA-104/MUM/2018 |
||
| Smt. Bhartiben Kapadia | … | Appellant |
| (6) MP-252/MUM/2019 (Resto) MP-222/MUM/2018 (Stay) FPA-105/MUM/2018 |
||
| Smt. Smitaben S. Kapadia | … | Appellant |
| (7) MP-253/MUM/2019 (Resto) MP-223/MUM/2018 (Stay) FPA-106/MUM/2018 |
||
| Smt. Beenaben (Lata) R. Kapadia | … | Appellant |
| Versus | ||
| The Competent Authority, Mumbai | … | Respondent |
| FPA-11/BOM/2014, FPA-101-106/MUM/2018 | Page 1 of 3 |
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellants : Shri Sumit R. Sharma, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Siddhartha Majumdar, Inspecting Officer
CORAM SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER
ORDER
12.09.2019
MP-247-253/MUM/2019 (Resto.)
The restoration applications have been filed in these appeals after dismissal of the appeal in default vide order dated 21st May 2019. The petitioners have filed their application for Restoration of Appeal on 18.06.2019 which is within 30 days of the date of dismissal of the appeals for non-prosecution and default. The copies of the applications were served on the other side and replies have also been filed by the respondent to the restoration of applications.
The restoration applications have been filed on the grounds that on the particular date 21.05.2019, the learned Counsel reached the Tribunal at 11.40 AM and by that time the matters stood dismissed in default of non-prosecution. He had made a mention before the Hon’ble Tribunal to restore the matter but was informed that the said request could not be allowed in the absence of the Counsel/Inspecting Officer for the Respondent. It is further pleaded therein that the learned Counsel had telephonically contacted the I.O. appearing on behalf of the respondent who informed that he has left and is on the way to the Airport and as such not possible to return to the Tribunal. As such, he was left with no option but to file the present applications for restoration of appeals.
FPA-11/BOM/2014, FPA-101-106/MUM/2018
Page 2 of 3
The fact of contacting the I.O. over phone is not denied by Shri Majumdar.
It appears that there is no intentional default on the part of the appellant or his Counsel.
On the other hand, the Competent Authority through I.O. raised objection as reflected in their replies. I have gone through the same. It is quite clear that the learned Counsel had appeared before this Tribunal and by that time the appeal was already dismissed for default. The restoration application have been filed within period of limitation that shows their seriousness in pursuing the appeals. In the given fact and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, I feel it is a fit case for restoring the appeal without any cost.
Accordingly, the appeals are restored.
List on 7th January, 2020.
(G.C. Mishra) Member
New Delhi, 12th September, 2019
‘r’
FPA-11/BOM/2014, FPA-101-106/MUM/2018
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether appeals dismissed in default of non-prosecution should be restored on grounds of unintentional default and presence of counsel at the time of dismissal.
Bhanumati Kapadia; Shri Himanshu J. Kapadia; Smt. Gitaben R. Kapadia; Smt. Kuksumben A. Kapadia; Smt. Bhartiben Kapadia; Smt. Smitaben S. Kapadia; Smt. Beenaben
The Competent Authority, Mumbai
G.C. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
12 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
