APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI MP-FE-149/MUM/2024(Resto.)

MP-FE-148/MUM/2024(CoD.)

FPA-FE-73/MUM/2009 Sh Ramesh S. Nahar … Appellant Versus The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Counsel Appeared For the Respondent : Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Adv.

CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI RAJESH MALHOTRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

06.03.2025 Heard the application for restoration of the appeal and the appeal itself. The appeal was dismissed for non- prosecution finding no representation on the part of the appellant despite several opportunities. The Tribunal had even issued notices to the appellant to call upon their representation. The appellant did not respond to the aforesaid and thus after giving enough opportunities, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The appeal is otherwise of the year 2009, thus pending before this Tribunal for the last more than 15 years. The appellant was thus directed to come prepared for final argument if the appeal is restored.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant prayed for restoration of the appeal looking the fact that the default in putting appearance was not deliberate and otherwise it would be in the interest of justice to decide the appeal on merit. The prayer was accordingly to hear the matter finally on its merit.

3. The application was opposed by the counsel for the respondent. It is submitted that due to the default of the appellant in putting appearance on many occasions, the appeal was rightly dismissed for non-prosecution. If it is to be restored, the appeal may be heard finally as otherwise prayed by the appellant himself.

4. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and pursued the record. It is a case where the impugned order was passed in the year 2009 and thereupon there were several defaults of the appellant in putting appearance. Efforts seems to be to delay the matter. In any case and in the interest of justice, we restore the appeal to its original number. With the aforesaid application for restoration of the appeal is allowed.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 09.03.2009 by raising only one ground leaving others. It was submitted that there was a delay in pronouncement of the order. The impugned order was passed after four and half years of the last date of hearing. Delay in pronouncement of order is fatal and otherwise this Tribunal in Appeal No. 58/2009 in the case of M/s South Indian Bank Limited V/s The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai by its order dated

25.01.2001 allowed the appeal on the same ground. The counsel for the appellant referred to the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kanwar Singh and others Versus Thakur Ji Maharaj reported in 1995 suppl. 4 SCC 125 where the appeal was allowed on the ground of delay in passing the judgement, though after leaving the issue open as to whether delay in passing the order itself can be a ground to set aside the order. The judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kanhayia Lal & Others Vs. Anoop Kumar & Others reported in AIR 2003 SC 689 has also been relied apart from the judgement in the case of Bhagwan Das, Fateh Chand Dewani and others Versus HPA International and Others reported in 2000 (2) SCC 13. The prayer was made to set aside the order on the aforesaid ground itself.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant did not raise any other argument despite an opportunity rather he was called upon to raise any other issue, if made out.

7. The counsel for the appellant restricted its argument. It was raised only on the ground of delay in pronouncement of the order.

8. The appeal has been contested by the respondents. It is submitted that batch of appeals arising of the same order has been decided by this Tribunal in the case of Sh. D.D. Kulkarni Versus Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai in Appeal No. FPA-FE-