TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Challenges in Appeal Restoration Due to Non-Prosecution: Lack of Provision under PMLA</h1> The appeal for restoration, dismissed for non-prosecution, faced challenges due to the appellant's failure to appear on specified dates and the lack of a ... Restoration of appeal - appeal dismissed for non-prosecution - service of order - no notice for hearing was served upon the Appellant - HELD THAT:- The facts that as emerged from the pleadings, record and oral submission, the appellant has advanced the reasons of non-filing of the applications for condonation of delay. One of the ground is that he could not know about the passing of the order dated 27.11.2019 as the said order was not uploaded in the website. Section 26(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cast a mandatory duty on the Appellate Tribunal to send a copy of the every order made by it to the parties to the appeal. There is nothing on record to show that copy of the order dated 27.11.2019 has been sent to the appellant. That being so, in fact, there is no delay in filing the appeal. The grounds of restoration advanced by the appellant is considered. The connected appeals are pending before this Tribunal and if the appeal is not restored to file than it would cause great hardship to the appellant and his family members. The prejudice which is likely to cause if the application is allowed can be compensated in terms of money. The applicant has agreed to compensate the Respondent with appropriate cost - the application for restoration of appeal is allowed subject to payment of cost of ₹ 20,000/- to the Respondent within eight weeks. Appeal restored. Issues:1. Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution.2. Grounds for restoration of appeal.3. Mischievous filing of restoration application.4. Failure to appear on specified dates.5. Lack of specific provision for restoration of appeal.6. Delay in filing restoration application.7. Justification for restoration of appeal.8. Application for stay on property vacation.Issue 1: Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-prosecutionThe applicant filed an application for the restoration of an appeal that was dismissed for non-prosecution. The grounds for restoration included the non-receipt of hearing notices and lack of awareness about the next hearing date. The applicant claimed that the non-appearance was inadvertent and requested restoration in the interest of justice, citing pending main cases before the Tribunal.Issue 2: Grounds for restoration of appealThe applicant argued that the appeal dismissal was due to the non-receipt of notices and lack of uploading interim orders on the website. The applicant's counsel admitted to not filing a vakalatnama for the present applicant in the appeal. The respondent contended that the restoration application was mischievously filed, and the dismissal was justified due to the appellant's failure to appear on multiple dates.Issue 3: Mischievous filing of restoration applicationThe respondent alleged that the restoration application was mischievously filed after suppressing relevant facts. The appellant and counsel's failure to appear on specified dates was highlighted, leading to the dismissal for non-prosecution. The respondent argued that there was no specific provision under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act for the restoration of the appeal.Issue 4: Failure to appear on specified datesThe appellant and counsel failed to appear on several dates, as noted by the respondent. The dismissal of the appeal was deemed justified due to the lack of sufficient cause for non-appearance. The respondent emphasized that the appellant's application lacked merit and deserved dismissal.Issue 5: Lack of specific provision for restoration of appealWhile there was no specific provision under the PMLA for the restoration of the appeal, Section 35(2) empowered the Appellate Tribunal to set aside orders of dismissal for default. The respondent argued against restoration, highlighting the appellant's repeated non-appearances and lack of grounds for restoration.Issue 6: Delay in filing restoration applicationThe restoration application was filed beyond the 30-day period for filing, without a specific application for condonation of delay. The appellant pleaded for condonation of delay, citing lack of awareness about the order due to non-uploading on the website. The appellant sought to condone any delay in the interest of justice.Issue 7: Justification for restoration of appealThe appellant contended that the appeal had merit, and the connected appeals being pending before the Tribunal supported the restoration application. The appellant claimed to be a scapegoat and emphasized the importance of hearing the appeal on its merits to avoid frustration of the case.Issue 8: Application for stay on property vacationAn application for stay was filed due to the vacation of the property, but it was dismissed as the possession had already been taken. The appellant's family members were evicted, leading to the stay application being deemed infructuous. The order allowed for the restoration of the appeal subject to the payment of costs to the respondent within a specified timeframe.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
