9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel for the respondent. It is submitted that the application to seek Condonation of Delay has been filed with mis-leading statement of facts. The learned counsel for the respondent gave reference of para 6 of the appeal to indicate that appellant was knowing about the provisional attachment order affixed on the captioned property. The appellant sent the applications to the office of the Enforcement Directorate for recall/modification of provisional attachment order. It was by the application dated 14.06.2023 and 10.07.2023. It was therefore knowing about the provisional attachment order. 5. According to the appellant, the application submitted by him was received by the office of the Enforcement Directorate but despite knowing about the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applicant verified the status of the disputed property and came to know that the impugned order has been passed qua the captioned property. Accordingly, on 04.08.2024, the counsel for the accused received the copy of the impugned order from another counsel who was representing some other person. 8. The perusal of para 4 reveals that appellant was not knowing about the proceeding before the Adjudicating Authority and further in absence of notice for eviction under section 8(4) of the Act of 2002, applicant remain un-aware of any proceedings about the disputed properties. 9. Contrary in para 5 of the of the application, it is stated that when applicant intend to sell the property, he informed his counsel that on 30.03.2023, provisional at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tus of the proceedings on provisional attachment order. 12. 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
