2022 (5) TMI 1362 - HC - Money Laundering

Condonation of delay of 204 days in filing appeal - sufficient reasons for condonation provided or not - HELD THAT - There is sufficient explanation for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. It is also informed by learned counsel for the Appellant that RC in the CBI Court and proceedings before the Enforcement Directorate involving the same transactions are pending. In Tata Yodogawa Ltd. 1988 (9) TMI 53 - SUPREME COURT , the Supreme Court had considered the application seeking condonation of delay wherein it was contended by the Appellants therein that the legal problem in filing the special leave petitions arose and the Supreme Court despite opportunities being given found that the Appellant had failed to explain as to what was the legal problem which had caused the delay. In view of the facts of the case, as also the explanation rendered for the delay, it is opined that Appellant has sufficiently explained the delay for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period - Application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing appeal challenging order dated 11.08.2014.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the judgment and order dated 21.10.2016, seeking condonation of a 204-day delay in filing an appeal against the order dated 11.08.2014. The Tribunal had earlier declined to condone the delay, stating that the reasons provided were not sufficient. However, the appellant, in the appeal, detailed the steps taken that led to the delay. The delay was attributed to the process of obtaining permission, drafting the appeal, and awaiting the sanction for the statutory deposit of fees. The delay was eventually explained, and the appeal was filed after the necessary procedures. The respondent argued against the condonation of delay, citing specific legal precedents to support their position.

The High Court examined the record and found the appellant's explanation for the delay satisfactory. Additionally, it was highlighted that related proceedings were pending in other courts, further justifying the delay. The court disagreed with the respondent's contention, stating that the cited legal judgments were not applicable to the present case. Specifically, the court differentiated the facts of the case from those in the cases referred to by the respondent. It emphasized that the question of condonation of delay is case-specific and must be assessed based on the individual circumstances of each case. The court noted that the delay in this case, 204 days, was adequately explained, unlike in the cases cited by the respondent where delays were significantly longer.

Based on the facts and the explanation provided for the delay, the High Court concluded that the appellant had sufficiently justified the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the application seeking condonation of delay before the Tribunal was also granted. The appeal was restored to its original number, and the Tribunal was directed to promptly consider and decide on the appeal in accordance with the law. Ultimately, the appeal and the pending application were disposed of in favor of the appellant.