The Tribunal rejected applications for restoration of appeals dismissed for nonprosecution. It held that the appellants' bona fides were not proved due to erratic appearances and non-compliance with notices.
All applications for restoration of appeal (ROA) were rejected.
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, FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT
AT NEW DELHI
| 1.MP-FE-433/DLI/2019 (Resto) FPA-FE-11/DLI/2014 |
||
|---|---|---|
| M/s. Vinayaka Images (P) Ltd. | … | Appellant |
| 2.MP-FE-434/DLI/2019 (Resto) FPA-FE-12/DLI/2014 |
||
| Shri Sanjeev Saraogi | … | Appellant |
| 3.MP-FE-431/DLI/2019 (Resto) FPA-FE-04/DLI/2015 |
||
| Shri Ram Avatar Saragi | … | Appellant |
| 4.MP-FE-432/DLI/2019 (Resto) FPA-FE-05/DLI/2015 |
||
| Smt. Kavita Saragi | … | Appellant |
| Vs. The Additional Director |
||
| Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi | … | Respondent |
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
| For the appellant | : Shri Alok Kumar Kothari, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For the respondent | : Shri Kaushlesh Pandey, Legal |
| Consultant | |
| CORAM | |
| MS. ANANYA RAY | : MEMBER |
ORDER 22.05.2019
MP-FE-433, 434, 431 & 432/DLI/2019
The learned counsel for the appellants states that he is appearing on behalf of all the four appellants. The Restoration of Appeal Applications are now taken up. The appeals were dismissed for nonprosecution vide this Tribunal’s order dt. 12.09.2018.
The learned counsel for the appellants states that there were certain mis-communications and although he had received the notice dated 10.8.2018 in which the next date of hearing, i.e. for 12.9.2018 was communicated, he was unable to attend the hearing. But he said
FPA-FE-11 & 12/JP/2014, FPA-FE-04 & 05/DLI/2015
Page 1 of 2
that he has been sincere in his appearances all along and therefore he needs to be given a chance.
The learned counsel for the respondent strongly objects to the same stating that the notice of hearing for 12.9.2018 has been sent one month before that date and it is also accepted by the learned counsel for the appellants that this notice was received by him. Moreover, the order dated 12.09.2018 vide which the appeals were dismissed has recorded that in the last three years they have failed to appear when it was listed for hearing at last on eight occasions.
As I recorded in order vide dated 12.9.2018, the learned counsel for the appellants was erratic in his appearance and in the last three years since 2015, they have not appeared on more than 8 occasions. The notice dated 10.08.2018 covered all the four appellants and the counsel for the appellants have accepted receipt of the notice.
Hence, I do not find any reason for allowing the restoration as their bonafides are not proved. Certain amount of discipline is required in their conducts in Court and not take the Benches for granted.
All the applications of ROA are therefore rejected.
(Ananya Ray) Member
New Delhi, 22nd May, 2019 M
FPA-FE-11 & 12/JP/2014, FPA-FE-04 & 05/DLI/2015
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applications for restoration of dismissed appeals should be allowed despite the appellants' failure to appear on multiple occasions and bona fides not being proved.
M/s. Vinayaka Images (P) Ltd.
Shri Sanjeev Saraogi
Shri Ram Avatar Saragi
Smt. Kavita Saragi
The Additional Director
Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi
MS. ANANYA RAY
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
