2019 (12) TMI 810 - AT - Money Laundering

Restoration of application - withdrawal of vakalatnama by earlier lawyer - eviction notice - no sale of the properties which have been attached by the ED has taken place - HELD THAT - The order of the Tribunal dated 17.7.2017 clearly mentions that the advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants had withdrawn his vakalatnama and it is recorded that he had already intimated to his client who shall make necessary arrangement to represent his case - Thereafter the case was fixed for hearing at least on four occasions almost covering a span of one year, but no one ever appeared. However soon after the case was dismissed for non prosecution on 07.09.2018, it is seen that the appellants filed the Restoration applications on 24.09.2018, within 17 days of the dismissed order. This does point out the intention of the appellants of deliberately not appearing on the previous occasions, so that the matter could get prolonged. The plea of the appellant Sh. Anosh Ekka s counsel that the appellant was in jail does not hold much ground as there are at least 9-10 other appellants as listed above who also did not appear and most of them are related to Sh. Anosh Ekka. Even today Sh. Anosh Ekka is in jail as stated by the counsel for the appellant but nevertheless he has been able to appoint a new lawyer - The conduct of the appellant as brought out by the respondent and which was not controverted by any documents or evidence especially the fact of selling off the attached properties under PMLA only points towards the dis-regard of law by the appellants. Justice is qua both the parties. There are no reason to allow the ROA applications - ROA application dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Restoration applications filed in multiple appeals dismissed earlier.
2. Appellants' contentions regarding lack of communication and awareness.
3. Respondent's arguments based on past conduct and related cases.
4. Consideration of Supreme Court's ruling on Condonation of Delay.
5. Decision on the restoration applications.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Restoration Applications
The judgment revolves around the restoration applications (ROA) filed in various appeals that were previously dismissed. The appellants argued that they were unaware of the change in legal representation and emphasized their innocence, requesting restoration on merit. On the other hand, the respondent highlighted the continuity of the offense and past conduct of the appellants, pointing out instances of attempts to sell attached properties. The Tribunal noted the timing of the restoration applications following the dismissal for non-prosecution, indicating a potential strategy to prolong the proceedings.

Issue 2: Lack of Communication and Awareness
The appellants raised concerns about the lack of communication regarding the withdrawal of their previous lawyer's representation and cited imprisonment as a reason for their unawareness of the case's progress. However, the Tribunal observed that multiple appellants, including one in jail, failed to appear, suggesting a collective disregard for legal proceedings. Despite being incarcerated, the appellant in jail managed to appoint a new lawyer, weakening the argument of being uninformed.

Issue 3: Past Conduct and Related Cases
The respondent highlighted the appellants' conduct in previous cases related to the same ECIR, pointing out instances where the Tribunal had issued orders to maintain status quo and prevent alienation of attached properties. The respondent also mentioned the sale of two properties despite being under attachment, indicating a lack of compliance with legal directives. These factors were crucial in assessing the appellants' credibility and adherence to legal obligations.

Issue 4: Supreme Court's Ruling on Condonation of Delay
In considering the Supreme Court's ruling on Condonation of Delay, the Tribunal emphasized the need for genuine reasons and objective reasoning in seeking restoration. Quoting the Supreme Court's stance on concocted explanations and fanciful grounds, the Tribunal underscored the importance of scrutinizing facts and exercising judicial discretion based on sound judgment rather than individual perceptions.

Issue 5: Decision on Restoration Applications
After thorough deliberation and analysis, the Tribunal concluded that there were insufficient grounds to allow the restoration applications in the cases under consideration. Citing the Supreme Court's guidance and considering the facts presented, the Tribunal dismissed all the restoration applications, thereby rejecting the appellants' pleas for reinstatement.

In summary, the judgment extensively analyzed the restoration applications in light of the parties' arguments, past conduct, legal directives, and relevant judicial precedents, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the applications based on the lack of compelling reasons for restoration.