Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(ATFP) 227

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
G. C. Mishra, Member, Balesh Kumar, Member
SRS Mining – Appellant
Versus
Visakh K. – Respondent
MP-PBPT 917/CHN/2025 | MP-PBPT-918/CHN/2025 | MP-PBPT-1286/CHN/2025 | FPA-PBPT-191/CHN/2018

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Madhav Khurana, K. Shiva
For the Respondents: Anish Dhingra

Tribunals possess inherent power to recall ex-parte orders upon proving 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance. However, such relief is not automatic and requires establishing that absence was not due to negligence, especially when multiple opportunities for participation were afforded to the party.

Headnote:(A) Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 - Section 40(2)(h) - Recall of ex-parte orders - Tribunal’s power - To succeed in a motion to recall an ex-parte order, an applicant must demonstrate 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance. The principle of recall is distinct from review, where the former addresses the lack of opportunity to be heard, while the latter addresses errors apparent on the face of the record. (Paras 10, 11)

(B) Procedural Fairness - Opportunity of hearing - When a party is granted multiple opportunities to appear and fails to do so despite the availability of alternate representatives, the plea of personal bereavement or professional negligence does not constitute 'sufficient cause' to justify the recall of an ex-parte order. (Paras 6, 8)

Facts of the case:
Multiple applications were filed by an applicant seeking the recall of several ex-parte appellate orders passed by the tribunal. The applicant contended that absence from prior hearings was due to personal tragedies and lack of communication from their previous counsel, and further sought to introduce evidence from a separate judicial proceeding to argue against the merits of the previous orders.

Findings of Court:
The tribunal observed that, despite being afforded numerous opportunities and extensions, the applicant remained absent from proceedings. The court noted that the firm had multiple partners who could have pursued the matter. No justification was provided for the prolonged neglect during the appellate proceedings before the final order was passed.

Issues: Whether the applicant established 'sufficient cause' for their non-appearance to justify the recall of ex-parte orders and whether the tribunal must recall its orders to admit additional evidence discovered post-disposal.

Ratio Decidendi: The tribunal held that inherent power to recall orders is conditional upon proving that a party was prevented from appearing by unavoidable circumstances for which they were not at fault. As the applicant failed to prove 'sufficient cause' despite ample opportunity, and since no error was apparent on the record, the request for recall was denied.

Result: Applications for recall dismissed.

This Order disposes of the Applications I.A. Nos. MP-PBPT 917/CHN/2025 (Recall) dated 03.02.2025, MP-PBPT-918/CHN/2025 (Recall) dated 03.02.2025 and MP-PBPT-1286/CHN/2025 (Recall) dated 18.03.2025 have been filed by the Respondent/ Applicant M/s SRS Mining under Section 40 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (PBPTA) seeking Recall of the Orders dated 03.07.2024, 14.01.2025 and 30.01.2025 passed by this Tribunal. The Applicant has also filed an Application for taking certain additional documents on record.

The present matter arises out of the Appeal No. FPA-PBPT 191/CHN/2018 filed by the Department against the Order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority whereby the Provisional Attachment Order dated 27.09.2017 was not confirmed. During the course of the Appellate proceedings, the Tribunal vide its Order dated 03.07.2024 decided to proceed ex-parte against the Applicant due to its non-appearance on 18.10.2023, 13.02.2024 & 03.07.2024. However, the Respondent was granted liberty to join proceedings. Thereafter, the Respondent failed to appear on 16.10.2024 and 14.01.2025. The Appeal was argued at length by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant Department on 14.01.2025. Since none had appeared for the Respondent i.e. the Applicant herein, the Order was reserved on 14.01.2025. The Appeal was disposed of by the Tribunal vide its Order dated 30.01.2025 by setting aside the Order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority as being devoid of merit and the Department’s Appeal No. FPA-PBPT-191/CHN/2018 was allowed.

Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Applicant, M/s SRS Mining, argued that non-appearance on their behalf was neither wilful nor deliberate. One of the partners of the Applicant Firm, Shri J. Sekar, had assumed the responsibility of managing the case. However, during the relevant period, he was preoccupied due to his father’s serious health ailments who eventually passed away in July, 2024. This caused immense emotional distress to Shri J. Sekar which led to disruption in coordinating with the Counsel. The previous Counsel also failed to monitor the progress of the proceedings and did not inform the Applicant of the developments therein.

Ld. Sr. Counsel further argued that during the pendency of the Appeal proceedings, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy v. Directorate of Enforcement [Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 2022 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8305 of 2021] by its Order dated 05.05.2022, quashed the ECR CEZO 19/2016 including the Complaint bearing No. 2 of 2017. The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated the grounds as the “detailed order of acceptance of the closure report of the scheduled offence in RC MA1 2016 A0040 and the quashment of two FIRs by the High Court of the scheduled offence and of the letter dated 16.05.2019 of IT Department and also the observations made by the Adjudicating Authority in the order dated 25.02.2019, the evidence of continuation of offence in ECR CEZO 19/2016 is not sufficient.” The previous Counsel for the Applicant failed to bring this Judgement on record which would have had a direct bearing on the Appellate proceedings. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Applicant therefore contended that failure to take into account the Supreme Court’s judgement of J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy v. Directorate of Enforcement [Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 2022 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8305 of 2021] would result in miscarriage of justice.

Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Applicant cited the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [(1996) 6 Supreme Court 92] and Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others [1980(supp) Supreme Court Cases 420] to state that the ‘Tribunal’ has the power to set aside its ex-parte order, if it is satisfied that the aggrieved party was prevented from appearing by sufficient cause even in the absence of an express provision i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(ATFP) 227

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTYG. C. Mishra, Member, Balesh Kumar, MemberSRS Mining – AppellantVersusVisakh K. – RespondentMP-PBPT 917/CHN/2025 | MP-PBPT-918/CHN/2025 | MP-PBPT-1286/CHN/2025 | FPA-PBPT-191/CHN/2018

Tribunals possess inherent power to recall ex-parte orders upon proving 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance. However, such relief is not automatic and requires establishing that absence was not due to negligence, especially when multiple opportunities for participation were afforded to the party.

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
G. C. Mishra, Member, Balesh Kumar, Member
SRS Mining – Appellant
Versus
Visakh K. – Respondent
MP-PBPT 917/CHN/2025 | MP-PBPT-918/CHN/2025 | MP-PBPT-1286/CHN/2025 | FPA-PBPT-191/CHN/2018