TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al charge of Delhi had reserved orders on 16 September 2021, no final verdict was rendered prior to appointment of Mr. Sanjog Kapoor in October 2021. From the aforesaid it is manifest that no wrongdoing can be fastened upon the respondents nor can they be held accountable for a failure on the part of the erstwhile Adjudicating Authority to have rendered final judgment prior to the appointment and posting of Mr. Sanjog Kapoor in October 2021. The Court further finds its unable to either countenance or discern an indefeasible right which may be recognised in law as inhering in the petitioners to seek continuance of the authority who had heard the matter on 16 September 2021 despite the appointment of Mr. Sanjog Kapoor in October 2021. Once ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e a regular appointment of an Adjudicating Authority insofar as the Bench at Delhi is concerned. - W.P.(C) 12846/2021, CM APPLs. 12338/2022, 12440/2022, W.P.(C) 12847/2021, CM APPLs. 14748/2022, 15538/2022 and W.P.(C) 12853/2021, CM APPLs. 15545/2022, 14217/2022 - - - Dated:- 4-5-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA Petitioner Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Hardik Sharma, Mr. Mukul Malik and Mr. Shekhar Pathak, Advs. Respondents Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC for UOI Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Anish Dhingra, SPP, Mr. Vipul Agrawal, Mr. Parth Semwal and Mr. Nakul Ahuja, Advs. for R-2. Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Ms. Rupali Kapoor, Adv. for UOI. YASHWANT VARMA, J. (ORAL) 1. Since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction, thereby directing Respondent No. 2 Adjudicating Authority and its concerned officer to pass orders/judgment within a specified time frame (2-3 months) in respect of all cases which have been heard by him and where judgment has been reserved, in particular the case of the Petitioner; AND c. Pass necessary orders and directions thereby laying down guidelines for the Respondent No. 1 that during issuing transfer orders, the same should have a provision that the concerned Authority / Tribunal Member / etc. shall be authorized to pass judgments within a relevant period of time in the matters which have already been reserved for judgment; 2. When the writ petition was initially entertained, a learned Judge of the Court o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1988 Act by Finance Act, 2021, the competent authority under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (forfeited of property) Act, 1976 [SAFEMA] was nominated and appointed to act as the Adjudicating Authority under the 1988 Act also. It is the case of the petitioners that in light of the aforesaid statutory amendments which came to be introduced, the matter was re-heard and re-argued before another Adjudicating Authority. The petitioners state that one Mr. Hari Govind Singh who was nominated as the Adjudicating Authority at Mumbai was given additional charge as Adjudicating Authority at New Delhi on account of a vacancy which came into existence. It is their case that the matter was thereafter again heard and orders reserved by Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant petition came to be filed. 6. As is evident from the aforesaid recital of facts, the change of the Adjudicating Authority firstly came about by virtue of the statutory amendments which were introduced. Further although the Adjudicating Authority of Mumbai who held additional charge of Delhi had reserved orders on 16 September 2021, no final verdict was rendered prior to appointment of Mr. Sanjog Kapoor in October 2021. From the aforesaid it is manifest that no wrongdoing can be fastened upon the respondents nor can they be held accountable for a failure on the part of the erstwhile Adjudicating Authority to have rendered final judgment prior to the appointment and posting of Mr. Sanjog Kapoor in October 2021. 7. The Court further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
