In six appeals filed by various Kapadias against the Competent Authority, Mumbai, the single-member Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals by default for non-prosecution as no appellant appeared before the forum.
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, NDPS, PMLA & PBPT ACT AT NEW DELHI
(1) MP-52/BOM/2014 (Stay) FPA-11/BOM/2014
| Bhanumati Kapadia … Appellant |
|
|---|---|
| Versus | |
| The Competent Authority, Mumbai … |
Respondent |
| (2) MP-218/BOM/2018 (Stay) FPA-101/BOM/2018 |
|
| Shri Himanshu J. Kapadia … |
Appellant |
| Versus | |
| The Competent Authority, Mumbai … |
Respondent |
| (3) MP-219/BOM/2018 (Stay) FPA-102/BOM/2018 |
|
| Smt. Gitaben R. Kapadia … |
Appellant |
| Versus | |
| The Competent Authority, Mumbai … |
Respondent |
| (4) MP-220/BOM/2018 (Stay) FPA-103/BOM/2018 |
|
| Smt. Kusumben A. Kapadia … |
Appellant |
| Versus | |
| The Competent Authority, Mumbai … |
Respondent |
| (5) MP-221/BOM/2018 (Stay) FPA-104/BOM/2018 |
|
| Smt. Bhartiben Kapadia … |
Appellant |
| Versus | |
| The Competent Authority, Mumbai … |
Respondent |
| (6) MP-222/BOM/2018 (Stay) FPA-105/BOM/2018 |
|
| Smt. Ismitaben S. Kapadia … |
Appellant |
| Versus | |
| The Competent Authority, Mumbai … |
Respondent |
FPA-11/BOM/2014 & FPA-101-106/BOM/2018
Page 1 of 2
(7) MP-223/BOM/2018 (Stay) FPA-106/BOM/2014
Bhanumati Chimanbhai Kapadia … Appellant Versus The Competent Authority, Mumbai … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellant : None For the respondent : Sh. Siddhartha Majumdar, I.O. CORAM SMT. ANANYA RAY : MEMBER ORDER 21.05.2019
FPA-11/BOM/2014 & FPA-101-106/BOM/2018
No one appears on behalf of the appellant. Since last one year almost no one is appearing on behalf of the appellant consistently in these cases. Even on an earlier occasion i.e. 4th April, 2019 one clerk of Mr. Sumit R,. Sharma, appeared and sought an adjournment for today and the date was given in the open court. Inspite of that no one appears today.
It appears that appellants are not interested to pursue the cases. Enough opportunities have been given by this bench to the appellants to appear and plead their appeals, but they have failed to do so.
In view of the above, the appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution and in default.
(Ananya Ray) Member New Delhi, 21st May, 2019 ‘s’
FPA-11/BOM/2014 & FPA-101-106/BOM/2018
Page 2 of 2
Bhanumati Kapadia, Himanshu J. Kapadia, Gitaben R. Kapadia, Kusumben A. Kapadia, Bhartiben Kapadia, Ismitaben S. Kapadia
The Competent Authority, Mumbai
Ananya Ray
As recorded by the court registry
12 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
