FPA-FE-12/DLI/2014 of Shri Sanjeev Saraogi v/s The Additional Director Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi

ATFP22 May 2019FPA-FE-12/DLI/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Appellate Tribunal (FE Act) rejected restoration applications filed by four appellants who sought to reactivate appeals previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The Tribunal held that bonafides were not proved due to erratic appearances and confirmed receipt of the hearing notice.

What the court decided

AI extract

FPA-FE-12/DLI/2014 of Shri Sanjeev Saraogi v/s The Additional… — Banking and Recovery | ATFP (2019)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT

¶2

AT NEW DELHI

¶3

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

¶4

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶5

For the appellant	: Shri Alok Kumar Kothari, Advocate
For the respondent	: Shri Kaushlesh Pandey, Legal
	Consultant
CORAM
MS. ANANYA RAY	: MEMBER

¶6

ORDER 22.05.2019

¶7

MP-FE-433, 434, 431 & 432/DLI/2019

¶8

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.

¶9

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

¶10

FPA-FE-11 & 12/JP/2014, FPA-FE-04 & 05/DLI/2015

¶11

Page 1 of 2

¶12

that he has been sincere in his appearances all along and therefore he needs to be given a chance.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

All the applications of ROA are therefore rejected.

¶17

(Ananya Ray) Member

¶18

New Delhi, 22^nd May, 2019 M

¶19

FPA-FE-11 & 12/JP/2014, FPA-FE-04 & 05/DLI/2015

¶20

Page 2 of 2

FPA-FE-12/DLI/2014 of Shri Sanjeev Saraogi v/s The Additional Director Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

FPA-FE-12/DLI/2014 of Shri Sanjeev Saraogi v/s The Additional Director Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases