Tribunal allows appeal due to custody delay, orders costs to respondent's counsel.

The Tribunal granted condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, acknowledging the appellant's judicial custody as sufficient cause for the delay. Relying on legal precedents emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, subject to the appellant paying costs to the respondent's counsel. The respondent was directed to file a reply within six weeks, with the next hearing scheduled for 25th April 2018.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Sufficient cause for the delay.
3. Legal precedents and principles regarding condonation of delay.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appellant filed an appeal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act against an order dated 01st August 2017, along with an application for condonation of delay. Initially, the delay was stated to be 22 days; however, upon further scrutiny, it was acknowledged that the delay was actually 31 days.

2. Sufficient Cause for the Delay:
The appellant argued that the delay occurred because he had been in judicial custody since 28th December 2016, which hindered his ability to provide timely instructions to his counsel. Conversely, the respondent's counsel contended that the application was mala fide, noting that the appellant signed the Vakalatnama on 13th September 2017, and the appeal should have been filed by 25th September 2017. The respondent argued it was the appellant's duty to ensure the timely filing of the appeal.

3. Legal Precedents and Principles Regarding Condonation of Delay:
The Tribunal referred to several judgments to elucidate the principles governing the condonation of delay:

- Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. Vs. M.I.D.C and Ors.: The Supreme Court emphasized that the question of condonation of delay is discretionary and must be decided based on the specific facts of each case. The Court's discretion should be exercised fairly and justly to promote justice rather than defeat it.

- State (NCT OF DELHI) v. AHMED JAAN: The Court highlighted that the sufficiency of the cause, not the length of the delay, is crucial. The Court should adopt a liberal approach to do substantial justice, especially when the delay is non-deliberate.

- Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji: The Court reiterated that the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice. The doctrine must be applied pragmatically, favoring substantial justice over technical considerations.

- Other Relevant Cases: The Tribunal also considered decisions like Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Dayal Singh v. Union of India, and State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, which collectively stress a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach in condoning delays.

Conclusion:
After considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal, recognizing that valuable rights were involved and the appellant had shown sufficient cause for the delay. The condonation was granted subject to the payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the respondent's counsel within six weeks.

Order:
The Tribunal issued a notice, directing the respondent to file a reply within six weeks, and the appellant to file a rejoinder four weeks thereafter. The matter was listed for the next hearing on 25th April 2018.

---