Delhi High Court
Directorate Of Enforcement vs O P Nahar on 23 May, 2022
$~24
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 23.05.2022
+ MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 4/2022 & CRL.M.A. 1413/2017
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Appellant
versus
O P NAHAR .....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, Special Counsel
with Mr. Prakarsh Airan and Ms. Harpreet
Kalsi, Advocates
For the Respondent: Respondent-in-person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Appellant impugns the judgment and order dated 21.10.2016
whereby the application of the appellant seeking condonation of delay
of 204 days in filing the appeal challenging order dated 11.08.2014
was dismissed and consequently the appeal was also dismissed having
been filed beyond the period prescribed.
2. Appellant had filed the subject appeal before the Tribunal
impugning order dated 11.08.2014 passed by the Adjudicating
Authority, PMLA, with a delay of 204 days. The Tribunal considered
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
Signing Date:25.05.2022
16:13:27
the break-up of the reasons given for the delay and held that delay had
not been properly explained and as such declined to condone the
delay.
3. In appeal, appellant has given a detailed explanation of the steps
taken and the reasons which led to the delay. Perusal of the same
shows that the file had been sent to the Head Office for consideration
with regard to filing of an appeal. Once the permission was granted by
Directorate of Enforcement, documents were sent to the counsel for
drafting the appeal. However, he expressed his inability to draft the
appeal for personal reasons and thereafter, another counsel was
appointed and documents were sent to him for drafting the appeal. The
draft of the appeal was received. Since the appeal was to be filed along
with the statutory deposit of fee, request was sent to the Accounts
Department for sanction and preparation of the pay order for deposit
along with the appeal. Subsequently, the appeal was filed with a delay
of 204 days.
4. Respondent, who appears in person, submits that there is no
explanation for condonation of delay and has relied on the decision of
the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. vs. Tata Yodogawa Ltd.
And Anr., (2015) 9 SCC 102 as also the decision in Pundlik Jalam
Patil (Dead) by LRs. vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project
and Anr., (2008), 17 SCC 448.
5. We have perused the record of the case and are satisfied that
there is sufficient explanation for not filing the appeal within the
prescribed period. It is also informed by learned counsel for the
Appellant that RC in the CBI Court and proceedings before the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
Signing Date:25.05.2022
16:13:27
Enforcement Directorate involving the same transactions are pending.
6. We are unable to accept the contention of the Respondent and
finds that the judgments referred are not applicable to the facts of the
present case.
7. In Tata Yodogawa Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court had
considered the application seeking condonation of delay wherein it
was contended by the Appellants therein that the "legal problem in
filing the special leave petitions arose" and the Supreme Court despite
opportunities being given found that the Appellant had failed to
explain as to what was the legal problem which had caused the delay.
8. Judgment in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (supra) is also not
applicable to the facts of the present case for the reason that in that
case, the Supreme Court had observed that the Appellant was taking a
false plea to overcome the plea of limitation.
9. In any event, question as to whether the delay has been
explained or not is dependent on the peculiar facts of each case.
Supreme Court in the above referred case has also not laid down as a
proposition of law that delay in all cases cannot be condoned. The
Court has to examine, in facts and circumstances of each case, as to
whether delay has been sufficiently explained or not. Further, it is
noticed that in that case the delay sought to be condoned was of 1724
days.
10. In view of the facts of the case, as also the explanation rendered
for the delay, we are of the opinion that Appellant has sufficiently
explained the delay for not filing the appeal within the prescribed
period. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
Signing Date:25.05.2022
16:13:27
11. Application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal
before the Tribunal is also allowed. Appeal is restored to its original
number on the file of the Tribunal.
12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, Tribunal is
directed to expeditiously consider and dispose of the appeal in
accordance with law.
13. Appeal and the pending application are disposed of, in the
above terms.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
MAY 23, 2022
'yg'
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
Signing Date:25.05.2022
16:13:27
