Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
NINALA JAYASURYA, SUMATHI JAGADAM
A. Viswanatha Raju (dead) – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director Of Enforcement – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
Ninala Jayasurya, J.
The present Appeal has been preferred against the order of the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi, dated 13.05.2024 passed in FPA-PMLA-221/HYD/2011. Vide said order, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application i.e., MP-PMLA- 12749/HYD/2023 (Misc.), seeking to bring on record the Legal Representative of the deceased appellant, as also the appeal.
2. Heard Mr. C.V.Narasimham, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Josyula Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The brief narrative of the case for better appreciation and adjudication of questions of law may be stated thus:
4. One Mr.A.Viswanatha Raju filed the above said appeal i.e., FPA- PMLA-221/HYD/2011 under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (for short “the PMLA”) against the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority in OC No.38/2009, dated 14.01.2010. The genesis for the complaint was a letter dated 07.01.2009 addressed by Mr. B.Ramalinga Raju to the shareholders of M/s SCSL (Satyam Computer Services Limited) intimating that books of accounts of M/s.SCSL were falsified and the financial figures were inflated and the FIR registered on 09.01.2
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act allows continuation of appeals by legal representatives without a specified limitation, and the dismissal of such applications on technical grounds is not susta....
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act allows legal representatives to continue appeals without a specified limitation period, and the application of CPC provisions is inappropriate in such cases.
The court ruled that it cannot condone delay beyond 120 days in appeals under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, as Section 5 of the Limitation Act is expressly excluded.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time limit prescribed under section 42 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 is absolute and cannot be extended by invoking sect....
Procedural rules under O.22, CPC should advance justice and not penalize parties for minor delays.
Delay/Laches/ limitation - Sufficient cause – Meaning of - The expression ‘sufficient cause’ within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code or any other similar provision s....
The court affirmed that a plaintiff can substitute legal representatives and condone delay if unaware of a defendant's death, emphasizing good faith in procedural compliance.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
