2024 (12) TMI 288 - AT - Money Laundering

Condonation of Delay in filing the appeal - lack of knowledge about impugned order and provisional attachment order - non-service of notice - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The appellant could know about the order only when he sent the counsel to verify the status of the disputed property. The application is silent about the date when verification of the status of the property was sought from the Registrar Office and even the date of information thereof. The application is further silent as to how the appellant could know about the impugned order because the information is not said to have been given by the Registrar Office. The application is vague on that aspect as to how the copy of the order was received on 04.08.2024. In fact, if one is not a party to the litigation, justification of delay in filing the appeal may remain but in the instant case, the appellant could know about that attachment of the property at the earliest and even sent an application to the ED who remains with no authority to release the property after attachment. Appellant did nothing and filed the appeal after 11 months. There are no justification for Condonation of Delay in pursuance to the vague application with conflict of statement to para 6 of the appeal. The application is accordingly dismissed so as the appeal.

Issues: Condonation of Delay in filing the appeal due to lack of knowledge about impugned order and provisional attachment order.

The judgment revolves around the issue of Condonation of Delay in filing an appeal due to lack of awareness about the impugned order and provisional attachment order. The appellant contended that since they were not a party to the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority, they were unaware of the impugned order passed on 18.09.2023, leading to the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant claimed that despite purchasing the property, they were not served with the notice of provisional attachment order, which was affixed in the name of another individual. The appellant argued that they only became aware of the order when they intended to sell the property and their counsel verified the status, discovering the impugned order. The respondent, however, contested the application, stating that the appellant had knowledge of the provisional attachment order as evidenced by their applications to the Enforcement Directorate for recall/modification of the order. The respondent highlighted that despite knowing about the order, the appellant did not take immediate steps to file the appeal, questioning the justification for the delay.

The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and observed that the appeal was filed with a delay of almost 11 months. The appellant's justification for the delay, as presented in their application, was scrutinized. The appellant argued that they were unaware of the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority and the absence of a notice for possession under the relevant Act kept them uninformed about the proceedings regarding the disputed property. However, the respondent pointed out that the appellant had knowledge of the provisional attachment order, as indicated by their actions of sending applications to the Enforcement Directorate for recall/modification of the order. The Tribunal noted the conflicting statements in the appellant's submissions, where on one hand, they claimed lack of knowledge, and on the other hand, they acknowledged awareness of the order but failed to take necessary steps promptly.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no justifiable reason for Condonation of Delay based on the vague and conflicting statements in the appellant's application. The Tribunal dismissed the application and consequently the appeal. However, it clarified that the dismissal of the appeal would not hinder the appellant from seeking release of the property under the relevant provisions of the Act at a later stage if circumstances favored them. The judgment concluded that the impugned order would not have an adverse impact on the appellant despite the dismissal of the appeal.

← Previous Next →