Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANGEETA K.VISHEN, MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Mekaster Engineering Limited – Appellant
Versus
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER :
1. By this application, the applicant has prayed for condoning the delay of 220 days caused in preferring the appeal under section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2002") against the order dated 20.05.2024 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) passed by the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Tribunal") .
2. Mr.Vishal Dave, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant was appointed as a Liquidator of M/s. Mekaster Engineering Limited. It is next submitted that order dated 19.09.2018 was passed by the adjudicating authority in Original Application no.196 of 2018 permitting the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement to retain the documents and freeze the assets and an amount of Rs.4,04,98,451/- was frozen and hence being aggrieved M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the HPCL") had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal wherein, applicant was joined as respondent no. 7. It is submitted that the applicant is aggrieved by the impugned order considering the fact that the amount, if is a
The High Court lacks authority to condone delays exceeding 120 days under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
The court ruled that strict compliance with statutory time limits is mandatory, and substantial justice cannot override clear legislative provisions regarding delay in filing appeals.
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....
Appeals under NIA Act Section 21(5) filed beyond maximum 90 days are not maintainable; delay uncondonable as provision mandatory, excluding Limitation Act Section 5 application.
Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when statute so prescribes – Courts have no power to extend period of limitation on equitable grou....
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
