TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Un-necessary, frivolous litigation before the Supreme Court by 'Directorate of Enforcement', that too with unexplained delay causing loss of human and fiscal resources of the nation.
Judgment under study - Directorate Of Enforcement Versus Sikander Singh - 2026 (3) TMI 1438 - SC Order, Read with related judgment of High Court against which appeal was filed reported as
Directorate of Enforcement
Directorate of Enforcement, popularly called ED, is one of top investigation agencies in our country. People are afraid of any type of action initiated by ED, and need to protect themselves from harassment. For this reason people prefer to engage top counsels, even for simple reply to be given against any notice or communication received from ED.
People respect ED, as any police officer, generally due to fear and not as a friendly agency. This is ground reality.
High Expectations:
It is also believed that ED offices are well organised and are resourceful to meet their working requirements, independently as well with linked outside agencies to whom they can outsource some work.
In view of a very high ranking investigation agency, the general public have expectations from such agencies of high discipline and working as per law and as per time schedules prescribed for doing any work and action to be taken.
Appeal before the Supreme Court:
It is unfortunate to note that even while filing an appeal before the top court, ED was not sincere and diligent. The appeal was filed belatedly. It was 114 days late. These 114 days are in addition to relatively long time,normally allowed to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.
In fact, in case of delayed filing first of it must be explained why appellant could not file appeal within time originally allowed and then each day of delay beyond originally allowed time need to be explained.
From order of the Supreme Court:
ORDER
1. The special leave petition is barred by 114 days delay.
2. We have looked into the application for condonation of delay in filing the special leave petition. Cause shown is absolutely insufficient.
3. The application for condonation of delay in filing the special leave petition stands rejected.
4. The special leave petition stands dismissed as time barred.
5. Pending applications stand disposed of.'
Unquote
We can observe that:
A. There was a delay of 114 days beyond the last date for filing of appeal as originally allowed.
B. Nothing is mentioned about why appeal could not be filed within time originally allowed.
C. Supreme Court found that 'Cause shown is absolutely insufficient', this can mean that there was no cause at all. This is also because the ED is a well organized and resourceful agency and expected to work promptly. When an appeal is filed against judgment of a High Court it must have serious reasons and substance to dispute ruling of a High Court.
D. By filing this appeal belatedly a lot of resources of the nation have been wasted. If we count, we find two judges rendered the order and during the process of filing to hearing and conveying order the establishment of SC was required to spend time. Further we find total 5 senior advocates and counsels ( including A.S.G) as follows on behalf of ED:
1.Mr. Suryaprakash V.raju, A.S.G.,
2. Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv.,
3.Mr. Samrat Goswami, Adv.,
4.Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv.,
5.Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR.
If ED was serious about any mistake in judgment of High Court, or feeling need of final words on the matter by the SC, then they must have, in fact filed appeal just as soon as possible i.e. within few days of pronouncement of judgment by High Court, because ruling of High Court was on several important issues concerning the old law of Indian Criminal Procedure Code and new law . The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS'). Retrospective effect of amendments in case of favourable amendment, applicability of new law including procedure to be followed as per new law, though that was not available at the time of alleged breach of law or alleged offence or crime committed etc.
The High Court's ruling, rendered after considering binding precedence from the Supreme Court's judgments, ruled in favour of accused and allowed opportunity of hearing, as allowed under BNSS, though it was not allowable under CR.PC. The petition was allowed by way of Restoration of matter to lower Court, with direction to allow opportunity of hearing and make a fresh decision on complaint.
Frivolous case:
From conclusion and order of the High Court, with highlights added for analysis and catch words:
' 9. In view thereof, the impugned orders, dated 22.11.2024 and 05.12.2024, are set aside directing the Special Judge under the PMLA to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in terms of first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS, within a period of eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of this order.
10. Petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.'
Unquote:
We find that the honourable High Court has set aside orders of lower court and given directions to pass a fresh order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
By filing the belated appeal, the ED has caused loss of valuable time to their lordships of the Supreme Court, because ED cannot be said to be adversely affected when order of lower court was simply set aside with direction to pass fresh order after following due process of law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Therefore, author feels that honourable Courts in such cases apply discretion and impose costs on petitioner who made such belated and un-necessary petitions causing brain drain at all levels and cost to the government and opposite parties.
Senior counsels must also act in the interest of society at large and should not advise filing of such cases. Furthermore, in such cases only AOR and at most one more counsel is enough, therefore, a team of senior counsels should not be engaged. The courts can start practice and should not hesitate to ask counsel as to why so many councils are appearing when law involved is from a single branch of legal provisions and case is not concerned with several laws of specialisation.
The client should also not hesitate to ask the same question and must request counsels to keep the number of counsels and costs of litigation at minimum.
Another case of delayed filing by ED:
2025 (12) TMI 376 - SC Order read with
2025 (7) TMI 572 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI - Lbin both parties being same namely
Directorate of Enforcement Versus Anil Kumar Mittal, Resolution Professional of Varutha Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
In this case it was held that the limitation started from the date of pronouncement ( and not date of service or coming to knowledge of order) of order/ judgment against which appeal is preferred.
Delay of 14 days was not satisfactorily explained hence appeal was dismissed. The said orders of lower courts namely NCLT and NCLAT were impliedly approved by the Supreme Court by holding as follows, with highlights added:
HELD THAT:- There are no good ground and reason to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 08.07.2025 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, on the ground that it was barred by limitation as per the provisions of Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Appeal dismissed.'
Unquote
Everyone, including top authorities and agencies of governments must learn and practice to follow discipline and timelines to make compliances as per law, including filing of appeals and petitions.