9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1543 - AT - Money LaunderingTime limitation - application for substitution of the deceased Appellant with legal heirs contested by the Respondent on the ground of delay - HELD THAT - The Tribunal is not bound by the procedure given under CPC but that does not mean that provision of CPC cannot be applied to guide itself to take an appropriate measure to the requirements. Article 120 of the Limitation Act provides three months period for filing application and we find it appropriate to apply the said period of limitation as otherwise this Tribunal is clothed with power to regulate its own procedure. Reason for the application of Article 120 of Limitation Act is to keep the proceedings alive in the hands of one who can pursue otherwise it would be in the hands of a dead person who cannot pursue the litigation and therefore substitution of the deceased is to be made within reasonable time. It is not that application cannot be filed for substitution of deceased after reasonable period of three months but is to be supported by an application for Condonation of delay after explaining the reasons. In the instant case no application for Condonation of Delay has been filed. The issue raised before the Apex Court in the case of Shri Puran Singh V/s. State of Punjab 1996 (1) TMI 436 - SUPREME COURT was similar to the issue before this Tribunal. It is as to whether order 22 of CPC can be made applicable when the Tribunal is not bound by the procedure given under CPC. It is also whether Article 120 Limitation Act can be applied. The Apex Court has decided the issue in reference to a Writ jurisdiction holding that death cannot be ignored even in those proceedings. It is necessary to substitute the deceased by the legal heirs within reasonable time and for which Article 120 of the Limitation Act was referred too. It is necessary to clarify that in the Writ Jurisdiction also the Court is not bound by the provision of CPC but general principles of law are required to be applied by the Courts and the Tribunal. The Counsel made oral submission to explain the cause of delay. It is reference to non-functioning of the Tribunal till August 2022. This is not a correct statement. The Tribunal was functioning till the year 2019 and thereafter with the appointment of a Member it was functional for some time. The oral excuse of delay is not tenable thus we are unable to allow the application having been filed after the reasonable period given by the Apex Court. Conclusion - i) The applications for substitution are dismissed due to excessive delay and lack of a condonation application. ii) The appeals are abated and dismissed as a result of the failure to substitute the deceased appellants within the reasonable time allowed. The applications are accordingly dismissed and with that the Appeals are abated and dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Application for Substitution of Deceased Appellant Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The primary legal framework involves Section 72 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which allows for the continuation of proceedings in the event of the appellant's death. The Tribunal is not bound by the CPC but may use its principles as guidance. Article 120 of the Limitation Act prescribes a three-month period for filing substitution applications. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged that while Section 72 permits continuation of proceedings by legal representatives, it does not specify a limitation period. However, the Tribunal found it appropriate to apply the three-month limitation period from Article 120 of the Limitation Act to ensure proceedings are pursued by someone capable. Key Evidence and Findings: Applications for substitution were filed beyond the three-month period without any accompanying application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's counsel referenced non-functioning of the Tribunal as a reason for delay, which was contested by the respondent. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied Article 120 of the Limitation Act to the proceedings, requiring an application for substitution within three months. The absence of a condonation application and explanation for delay led to the dismissal of the substitution applications. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued that the delay was due to the Tribunal's non-functioning, while the respondent pointed out the lack of a formal condonation application. The Tribunal found the appellant's oral argument insufficient and unsupported by facts. 2. Applicability of CPC and Limitation Act Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Shri Puran Singh v. State of Punjab, which discussed the applicability of CPC provisions in writ proceedings and the necessity of substituting deceased parties within a reasonable time. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal concluded that while it is not bound by CPC, the principles of law, including those from Article 120 of the Limitation Act, should guide the proceedings to ensure continuity and prevent abatement. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal considered precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts, which supported applying general legal principles to ensure timely substitution of deceased parties. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle of reasonable time for substitution, as outlined in Article 120, and found the applications were filed too late without justification. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's reliance on the Tribunal's non-functioning was inadequate without formal documentation or a condonation application. The Tribunal emphasized the need for procedural compliance to maintain the integrity of legal proceedings. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's reasoning: "It is necessary to substitute the deceased by the legal heirs within reasonable time and for which Article 120 of the Limitation Act was referred too." Core Principles Established:
Final Determinations on Each Issue:
|
