Chattisgarh High Court
M/S Sripreeti Tirumala Agro Farm Pvt. ... vs Sandeep Ahuja on 15 April, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:17055-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MA No. 64 of 2025
Tapasya Rai W/o Rahul Vishnoi Aged About 40 Years R/o 112/261b
Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur
--- Appellant(s)
versus
Sandeep Ahuja Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement,
Government Of India, A-1 Block, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka,
Raipur, C.G.
--- Respondent(s)
MA No. 65 of 2025
Shilpi Vishnoi D/o Late Shri Vijay Kumar Vishnoi Aged About 38 Years
R/o 112/261b Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur, U.P.
---Appellant(s)
Versus
Sandeep Ahuja Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement,
Government Of India, A - 1 Block Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka,
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
Radha Vishnoi W/o Late Shri Vijay Kumar Vishnoi Aged About 68 Years
R/o- 112/261b Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur
---Appellant(s)
Versus
Sandeep Ahuja Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement,
Government Of India, A-1 Block, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka,
Raipur, C.G.
--- Respondent(s)
M/s Tejasvi Sunshine Pvt. Ltd. At B- 42, Gayatri Nagar Raipur Through
Its Director Preeti Godara W/o Sameer Vishnoi Age 40 R/o Devendra
Nagar Raipur (C.G.)
---Appellant(s)
Versus
Sandeep Ahuja Deputy Director Directorate Of Enforcement
Government Of India A-1 Block Pujari Chamber Pachpedi Naka Raipur
(C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
Smt. Preeti Godara W/o Sameer Vishnoi Aged About 40 Years R/o.
Devendra Nagar, Raipur, C.G.
---Appellant(s)
Versus
Sandeep Ahuja Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement,
Government Of India, A-1 Block, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka,
Raipur, C.G.
--- Respondent(s)
M/s Sripreeti Tirumala Agro Farm Pvt. Ltd. At B-42, Gayatri Nagar,
Raipur, Through Its Director, Preeti Godara W/o Sameer Vishnoi Age-
40 R/o- Devendra Nagar, Raipur, C.G.
---Appellant(s)
Versus
Sandeep Ahuja Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement,
Government Of India, A-1 Block, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka,
Raipur, C.G.
--- Respondent(s)
Nirmala Godara W/o Late Sunder Singh Godara Aged About 60 Years
R/o Godara Cotton Factory, Anupgarh, District- Ganganagar
---Appellant(s)
Versus
Sandeep Ahuja Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement
Government Of India, A-1 Block, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka,
Raipur, C.G.
--- Respondent(s)
Surya Prakash Punia S/o Shiv Kumar Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward
No. 25, Pilibanga, District Haumangarh, Rajasthan.
---Appellant(s)
Versus
Sandeep Ahuja Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement,
Government Of India, A-1, Block, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
Meena Godara W/o Surya Prakash Puniya Aged About 42 Years R/o
Ward No. 25 Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh, Rajisthan.
---Appellant(s)
Versus
Sandeep Ahuja Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement,
Government Of India, A - 1, Block Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka,
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
15/04/2025
1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video
conferencing.
2. Heard Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, learned counsel for the Appellants.
Also heard Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned counsel for
respondents.
3. The respective appellants have filed these appeals seeking
quashing of order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the Appellate
Authority under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2005 (for short, "the Act of 2005") and also the
order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority
under Section 6 of the Act of 2005 and release the properties of
the appellants which has been attached by the Enforcement
Directorate.
4. Since common facts and issues are involved in these appeals,
they are being considered and decided together. All these
appeals are listed today for orders on default.
5. Perusal of the office notes goes to show that the present appeals
are barred by limitation of 47 / 49 days and it has further been
reported by the Registry that no application for condonation of
delay has been filed by the appellants.
6. The conduct of the appellants by filing these appeals against the
order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under
the the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators
(Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, New Delhi (for short, the
Appellate Tribunal) goes to show that they were party to the
proceedings and they were aware of the fact that their appeals
have been dismissed and they had to take recourse to law
against the impugned order, but the present appeals have been
filed without being accompanied by any application for
condonation of delay, which goes to suggest that the present
appeals have been filed with an oblique motive.
7. Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the appellants have wrongly arrayed Mr. Sandeep
Ahuja as party respondent, which in fact should have been
arrayed by designation and not in personal capacity.
8. Today, when the matter has come up for hearing, learned counsel
for the appellants prays that he may be granted 48 hours time to
cure the defects pointed out by the Registry.
9. On a pointed query being made by this Court to the learned
counsel for the appellants as to why no application for
condonation of delay has been filed accompanying these appeals
when it was well known to the appellants that the appeals were
filed beyond limitation, and why the respondent No. 2 has been
arrayed in personal capacity and not in official capacity, Mr.
Tripathi has failed to give any satisfactory explanation and
tenders his apology for the same.
10. The aforesaid conduct of the learned counsel for the appellants
has not only caused inconvenience to the Court but the precious
time of the Court has also been wasted. The appeals have been
drafted in a very casual and sketchy manner without adhering to
the basic requirements and the learned counsel has not made
any efforts or taken pains to cure the defects pointed out by the
Registry, in advance.
11. Since the Registry has pointed out number of defects in these
appeals and above all, despite knowing the fact that the appeals
are barred by limitation, no application seeking condonation of
delay has been filed, Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for the
respective appellants seeks permission of this Court to withdraw
the present appeals with liberty to file better constituted appeals
duly accompanied with proper applications.
12. Learned counsel for the other side has no objection.
13. In view of the above, these appeals are dismissed as
withdrawn, with liberty to file a better constituted appeal, subject
to depositing a sum of Rs.25,000/- (each) as cost by the
appellants in the Registry of this Court and the same shall be
transmitted to the Government Home for Mentally
Underdeveloped Children, Mana Camp, District- Raipur (C.G.).
14. Certified copy of the documents annexed in the appeals, if any,
may be returned back to the counsel for the appellants after
obtaining the photocopy of the same, subject to deposit of the
fine amount.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Manpreet / Amit
AMIT
KUMAR
DUBEY
