Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:17055-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 64 of 2025 Tapasya Rai W/o Rahul Vishnoi Aged About 40 Years R/o 112/261b Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur --- Appellant(s) versus Sandeep Ahuja Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement, Government Of India, A-1 Block, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, C.G. --- Respondent(s) MA No. 65 of 2025 Shilpi Vishnoi D/o Late Shri Vijay Kumar Vishnoi Aged About 38 Years R/o 112/261b Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur, U.P. ---Appellant(s) Versus Sandeep Ahuja Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement, Government Of India, A - 1 Block Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) MA No. 66 of 2025
Legal Reasoning
Radha Vishnoi W/o Late Shri Vijay Kumar Vishnoi Aged About 68 Years R/o- 112/261b Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur ---Appellant(s) Versus 2 Sandeep Ahuja Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement, Government Of India, A-1 Block, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, C.G. --- Respondent(s) MA No. 67 of 2025 M/s Tejasvi Sunshine Pvt. Ltd. At B- 42, Gayatri Nagar Raipur Through Its Director Preeti Godara W/o Sameer Vishnoi Age 40 R/o Devendra Nagar Raipur (C.G.) ---Appellant(s) Versus Sandeep Ahuja Deputy Director Directorate Of Enforcement Government Of India A-1 Block Pujari Chamber Pachpedi Naka Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) MA No. 68 of 2025 Smt. Preeti Godara W/o Sameer Vishnoi Aged About 40 Years R/o. Devendra Nagar, Raipur, C.G. ---Appellant(s) Versus Sandeep Ahuja Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement, Government Of India, A-1 Block, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, C.G. --- Respondent(s) MA No. 70 of 2025 M/s Sripreeti Tirumala Agro Farm Pvt. Ltd. At B-42, Gayatri Nagar, Raipur, Through Its Director, Preeti Godara W/o Sameer Vishnoi Age- 40 R/o- Devendra Nagar, Raipur, C.G. ---Appellant(s) Versus 3 Sandeep Ahuja Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement, Government Of India, A-1 Block, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, C.G. --- Respondent(s) MA No. 71 of 2025 Nirmala Godara W/o Late Sunder Singh Godara Aged About 60 Years R/o Godara Cotton Factory, Anupgarh, District- Ganganagar ---Appellant(s) Versus Sandeep Ahuja Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement Government Of India, A-1 Block, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, C.G. --- Respondent(s) MA No. 73 of 2025 Surya Prakash Punia S/o Shiv Kumar Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 25, Pilibanga, District Haumangarh, Rajasthan. ---Appellant(s) Versus Sandeep Ahuja Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement, Government Of India, A-1, Block, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) MA No. 74 of 2025 Meena Godara W/o Surya Prakash Puniya Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 25 Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh, Rajisthan. ---Appellant(s) Versus 4 Sandeep Ahuja Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement, Government Of India, A - 1, Block Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15/04/2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, learned counsel for the Appellants. Also heard Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned counsel for respondents. 3. The respective appellants have filed these appeals seeking quashing of order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act of 2005”) and also the order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 6 of the Act of 2005 and release the properties of the appellants which has been attached by the Enforcement Directorate. 5 4. Since common facts and issues are involved in these appeals, they are being considered and decided together. All these appeals are listed today for orders on default. 5. Perusal of the office notes goes to show that the present appeals are barred by limitation of 47 / 49 days and it has further been reported by the Registry that no application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellants. 6. The conduct of the appellants by filing these appeals against the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under the the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, New Delhi (for short, the Appellate Tribunal) goes to show that they were party to the proceedings and they were aware of the fact that their appeals have been dismissed and they had to take recourse to law against the impugned order, but the present appeals have been filed without being accompanied by any application for condonation of delay, which goes to suggest that the present appeals have been filed with an oblique motive. 7. Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellants have wrongly arrayed Mr. Sandeep Ahuja as party respondent, which in fact should have been arrayed by designation and not in personal capacity. 8. Today, when the matter has come up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellants prays that he may be granted 48 hours time to 6 cure the defects pointed out by the Registry. 9. On a pointed query being made by this Court to the learned counsel for the appellants as to why no application for condonation of delay has been filed accompanying these appeals when it was well known to the appellants that the appeals were filed beyond limitation, and why the respondent No. 2 has been arrayed in personal capacity and not in official capacity, Mr. Tripathi has failed to give any satisfactory explanation and tenders his apology for the same. 10. The aforesaid conduct of the learned counsel for the appellants has not only caused inconvenience to the Court but the precious time of the Court has also been wasted. The appeals have been drafted in a very casual and sketchy manner without adhering to the basic requirements and the learned counsel has not made any efforts or taken pains to cure the defects pointed out by the Registry, in advance. 11. Since the Registry has pointed out number of defects in these appeals and above all, despite knowing the fact that the appeals are barred by limitation, no application seeking condonation of delay has been filed, Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respective appellants seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present appeals with liberty to file better constituted appeals duly accompanied with proper applications. 12. Learned counsel for the other side has no objection. 7 13. In view of the above, these appeals are dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a better constituted appeal, subject to depositing a sum of Rs.25,000/- (each) as cost by the appellants in the Registry of this Court and the same shall be transmitted to the Government Home for Mentally Underdeveloped Children, Mana Camp, District- Raipur (C.G.). 14. Certified copy of the documents annexed in the appeals, if any, may be returned back to the counsel for the appellants after obtaining the photocopy of the same, subject to deposit of the fine amount. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Manpreet / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.04.21 15:17:39 +0530