Review of an order dismissing condonation of delay is not an appeal; review lies only for error apparent on record or discovery of new facts, not for re-agitating grounds already considered.

ORDER

16.10.2025

The Review Petitions have been filed under Section 35(2)(f) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( in short “the Act of 2002”) against the order dated 17.04.2025 passed by this Tribunal dismissing the applications for Condonation of Delay and as a consequence, the appeals.

2. The appeal was filed with a delay of 635 days and accordingly application for Condonation of Delay was filed by the appellants and was dismissed by this Tribunal vide its order dated 17.04.2025 and is sought to be reviewed.

3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal was of 589 days which inadvertently recorded as 625 days in the application for Condonation of Delay and recorded to be of 635 days in the impugned order.

4. The reason for delay was given which was due to filing of a Writ Petition No. 6018/2022 before the High Court of Delhi and the interim order passed on 12.04.2022 to restrain the respondent from further proceedings under Section 8 of the Act of 2002. Despite the restraint order, the Adjudicating Authority passed the order confirming the Provisional Attachment Order despite the interim order in the presence of the respondent, thus Adjudicating Authority was aware of the interim order, yet passed the order. It was in violation of the restraint order of the High Court of Delhi and therefor appeal was not preferred immediately.

5. It is with the further statement that the Counsel for the review applicant before the Adjudicating Authority was Mr. Shamsuddin. The appeal was not preferred within limitation in the light of the advice given by the said Counsel and was taken it to be genuine with a bona fide belief that no further legal steps are required against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 25.07.2022 because it was in contravention of the Stay order of the High Court of Delhi. The delay was not out of negligence but remained bona fide. Thus, it should have been condoned.

6. It is with further statement of the fact that review applicants took second advice and filed the appeals immediately thereupon within limitation.

7. The Counsel for the review applicants had given reference to the order passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in reference to other persons also whose properties were also provisionally attached. It is to show a strong belief on part of the appellants for non-filing of the appeals immediately in the light of the several interim orders passed by the High Court of Delhi in different cases. The interim order was to the effect that the Adjudicating Authority can pass the order, however, it would not be implemented without the leave of the Court. The aforesaid reason also waved in the mind of the appellants not to immediately file the appeal.

8. Ld. Counsel for the review applicants further submitted that on the grant of bail to Shri Rajesh Malik, promoter of the review applicant company and the person overseeing the legal affairs, the review applicant proceeded to engage a new counsel. The newly appointed Counsel advised to prefer statutory appeal before the Tribunal and accordingly without further delay, the appeals were filed but application for Condonation of Delay has been dismissed by this Tribunal. It is despite a fact that the appeal was not preferred immediately under the advice of the Counsel and wrong advice can be a ground to condone the delay. A reference of the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in the case of Rajesh Chandran v. Mr. Gopalakrishnan Nair & Ors. OP(C) No. 281 of 2022 was given. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353) was also cited. The reference of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lala Matadin v. A. Narayanan reported in 1969 2 SCC 770 was also given wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on the judgment in the case of Basawaraj and Ors. v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (Civil Appeal No. 6974 of 2013) held that a delay caused due to legal advice