Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 12% off sitewide! →✨ Enterprise Access - Extra Savings! Contact: 9911796707 →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Bank's 708-day delay in PMLA appeal condoned due to merger complexities under Section 26</h1> <h3>Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd Versus Directorate Of Enforcement & Ors.</h3> Delhi HC condoned 708-day delay in filing appeal against provisional attachment order under PMLA. Bank argued merger of ING Vysya Bank with Kotak Mahindra ... Condonation of delay of 708 days in filling the Appeal - Money Laundering - challenge to provisional attachment order - sufficient cause for delay or not - merger of ING Vysya Bank with Kotak Mahindra Bank - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt that the order, confirming the provisional attachment was passed on 01st June, 2016 and it is the admitted position that the same was received on 03rd June, 2016 by the bank - In the opinion of this Court, the merger of the Transferor Bank (ING Vysya Bank) with Kotak Mahindra Bank in April, 2015, is a justifiable reason and cause that could have resulted in the delay. Upon the perusal of Section 26 of the PMLA, it would show that after the initial period of 45 days, there is no outer limit prescribed and the question would be whether there is sufficient cause or not - firstly, there is no outer limit and there is also no negative stipulation that delay beyond a particular period would not be condonable. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Directorate of Enforcement v. O P Nahar [2022 (5) TMI 1362 - DELHI HIGH COURT] while adjudicating an appeal from an order of the Appellate Tribunal wherein the appeal under Section 26 of the PMLA was rejected due to delay of 204 days in its filing. The Court condoned the delay and inter alia held that the Appellant therein sufficiently explained the delay for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. This Court takes into consideration the fact that the Appellant is a bank and since it was going through the merger process, it cannot be said that the delay is completely inexplicable. Mergers of banks would involve complicated processes, technological integration, customer integration, staff related issues, compliances etc., have to be put in place. This could have delayed the filing of the appeal due to various procedural and administrative reasons. Conclusion - The merger process provides a sufficient cause for the delay, thereby condoning it and restoring the appeal for adjudication on merits. The merger process provided a sufficient cause for the delay, thereby condoning it and restoring the appeal for adjudication on merits - The appeal shall now be restored to its original number before the Appellate Tribunal and shall be adjudicated on merits in accordance with law. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issue considered in this judgment is whether the delay of 708 days in filing an appeal by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) should be condoned. The appeal was against an order confirming the provisional attachment of a property under the PMLA. Key sub-issues include:Whether the merger of ING Vysya Bank with Kotak Mahindra Bank constitutes a 'sufficient cause' for the delay.The application of Section 26 of the PMLA concerning the limitation period for filing appeals.The impact of the bank's role as a public interest representative on the decision to condone the delay.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsSection 26 of the PMLA stipulates a 45-day period for filing an appeal against orders of the Adjudicating Authority or Director. However, it allows the Appellate Tribunal to entertain appeals filed beyond this period if 'sufficient cause' is shown. The Court referenced the absence of an outer limit for condonation of delay under this section and compared it with precedents where delays were condoned based on the specific circumstances of each case.Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe Court interpreted the lack of an explicit outer limit in Section 26 as indicative of legislative intent to allow flexibility in condoning delays. It emphasized that the determination of 'sufficient cause' is fact-specific and should consider the unique circumstances of each case. The Court was persuaded by the argument that the merger process between ING Vysya Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank involved complex administrative and procedural changes, which could justify the delay.Key Evidence and FindingsThe Court noted that the merger involved significant restructuring, management changes, and logistical challenges, which were deemed plausible reasons for the delay. Additionally, the market value of the property in question, stated to be over 5.5 crores, underscored the significance of the case and the potential impact on public interest.Application of Law to FactsApplying Section 26, the Court found that the merger constituted a sufficient cause for the delay. The Court highlighted that the bank's role in representing public interest and the complexities involved in the merger process justified leniency in adhering to the strict timeline for filing appeals.Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe Respondent argued that the bank was aware of the provisional attachment confirmation and should have acted within the prescribed period. However, the Court found the bank's explanation credible, given the administrative challenges posed by the merger. The Court distinguished this case from others by emphasizing the bank's unique position and the procedural burdens of the merger.ConclusionsThe Court concluded that the delay was justifiable and condoned it, allowing the appeal to be heard on merits. The decision was conditioned upon the payment of costs to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal ReasoningThe Court stated, 'In the facts and the circumstances of the present Appeal, we do not find that the Appellant Bank has satisfactorily explained the delay of 708 days in filling the Appeal. Therefore, we dismiss the Application for Condonation of Delay and, consequently, the Appeal is also dismissed.' However, this was overturned by the High Court, which found the delay justifiable.Core Principles EstablishedThe judgment reinforces the principle that procedural delays can be condoned if justified by sufficient cause, particularly when public interest is at stake. It underscores the importance of context-specific analysis in determining the sufficiency of cause under Section 26 of the PMLA.Final Determinations on Each IssueThe Court determined that the merger process provided a sufficient cause for the delay, thereby condoning it and restoring the appeal for adjudication on merits. The decision was contingent on the payment of costs, reflecting a balance between procedural compliance and substantive justice.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found