https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213758 The petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the Tribunal's appellate order because it was neither a noticee before the Enforcement Directorate nor a party to the appeal between the Bank and its officer. No legal basis was shown for impleadment, and the order only exonerated the Bank and its officer from penalty without determining any liability against the petitioner. The alleged seizure of the petitioner's account was outside the adjudication and appellate proceedings and was treated as an independent grievance. The availability of a statutory appeal was also noted as a separate remedy. The challenge was therefore held not maintainable, and non-impleadment caused no legal prejudice. en-us Fri, 05 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213758 The petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the Tribunal's appellate order because it was neither a noticee before the Enforcement Directorate nor a party to the appeal between the Bank and its officer. No legal basis was shown for impleadment, and the order only exonerated the Bank and its officer from penalty without determining any liability against the petitioner. The alleged seizure of the petitioner's account was outside the adjudication and appellate proceedings and was treated as an independent grievance. The availability of a statutory appeal was also noted as a separate remedy. The challenge was therefore held not maintainable, and non-impleadment caused no legal prejudice. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 05 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213758