9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. There is no momentum of force in the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the applicant/appellants the judgments relied upon by the applicant are not applicable in the present case. There is modicum of merit in the submissions' of Ld. ALA for the respondent. Hence, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal as well as the appeal, arising out from the Adjudicating Order passed by the Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi is hereby dismissed - JUSTICE VINAY KUMAR MATHUR, CHAIRPERSON AND DR. H. K. MUDGIL, MEMBER For the Applicant : Dr. Prabhat Kumar, Ld. Adv. For the Respondent : G.N. Ghosh ORDER Dr. H.K. Mudgil, Member - The factual matrix of the case succinctly, may be noticed that the applicant/appellant, by means of the present appeal U/s 52 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 challenged the Adjudication Order No. SDE(KRB)/111/35/2000, dated 15.11.2000 passed by Sh. K. R. Bhargava, Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi 6 also filed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal coupled with the application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the noticees were represented by Ld. Advocates S/Sh Ashutosh . Sanjeev Kumar by way of filing vakalatanama on behalf of all the noticees before the Adjudicating Authority when no reply of show cause was received, despite the fact that several opportunities were given to the noticees their Ld. Advocates for personal hearing, then it was decided by the Adjudicating Authority to hold the adjudicating proceedings passed the Adjudication .order on 15.11.2000 against all the four noticees including the applicant/appellant. 3. Appeal against the impugned order was thereafter preferred by the applicant/appellant Shri O. P. Duggal only before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange on 29.10.2012. This appeal was filed after a delay of more than 11 years 10 months from the date of Adjudication Order, dated 15.11.2000 as reported by the Registry on 9.11.2012, though the applicant/appellant in his pleadings emphasized that the Adjudication Order was received by the applicant/appellant an 15.09.2012. Separate application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was filed by the applicant/appellant. 4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/appellant reiterated al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s titled (supra). 5. Shri; G.N. Ghosh, Ld, ALA for the respondent opposed the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the applicant/appellant. It is submitted that the appeal is time barred the application of the applicant/appellant for condonation of delay is not maintainable. It is also submitted that in the Adjudication Order, dated 15.11.2000, it is mentioned that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was received by the applicant/appellant on 26.04.1999 as per the acknowledgement received in the office, when all the noticees were represented by Id. Advocates S/Sh Ashutosh Sanjeev Kumar by way of filing vakalatanama on behalf of all the noticees before the Adjudicating Authority when no reply of show cause was received, despite service of the appellant, then it was decided by the Adjudicating Authority to hold the adjudicating proceedings. It is also mentioned in the Adjudication Order that the applicant/appellant did not turn up thereafter despite the fact that several opportunities were given to the applicant/appellant for personal hearing in this regard there was no explanation. When no reply was given despite service the personal appearance of the applicant/appellant, then the Adjudicating Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f delay as it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of judgments titled as below: 1) Maniben Devraj Shah. v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai 2012 STPL (Le) 46398 Sc. 2) Office of Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. 2012 STPL (LE) 46200 Sc. In the Judgment of Maniben Devraj Shah (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para no. 18 observed as under : 18. What needs to be emphasised is that even though a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise' of power under Section.5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the Courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation: apart from the cost. What colour the expression sufficient cause would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
