Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2016 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1546 - HC - Money LaunderingService of order - Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Does the service of, say, an order, on the counsel amount to its proper service on the party to the proceedings? - Held that: - sub-rule (b) is mandatory in its scope and ambit; necessarily, the communication should be addressed to the party and the party alone. Any alternative service through post on the so-called authorised agent does not amount to proper service. Is Rule 5 ultra vires of the Parent Statute? - Held that: - A Constitutional Court unless inevitable, should avoid adjudicating constitutional issues and resolve the case on, say, statutory grounds - Because the main issue resolves the legal tangle on delayed approach to the Court, we need not address this issue. Condonation of delay - Held that: - the appellant came to know about the order on 22-9-2015, when the respondents filed the counter-affidavit in the appellant’s previous writ petition. The respondent asserted that the Tribunal had already served the order copy on the appellant’s counsel. Reknoned from 22-9-2015, there is a delay of 55 days in filing the appeal - Given the reason of ill health cited by the appellant in the affidavit filed to support the application and the attendant circumstances, it is a fit case for exercising our discretion to condone the delay, which is within the permissible limit of sixty days. Appeal disposed off.
|