PMLA Appeal Dismissed on Limitation, Tribunal Cannot Review Merits | HC

Case Details: Renu Singh vs. Vivek Prasad - [2025] 177 taxmann.com 666 (Jharkhand)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
• Sameer Saurabh & Ms Divya, Advs. for the Appellant
• Amit Kumar Das, Saurav Kumar & Varun Girdhar, Advs. for the Respondent

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Appellant filed an appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority. Since the appeal was barred by limitation, the same was filed along with an application for condonation of delay, stating that the Appellant was suffering from cardiac issues.

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the cause shown could not be said to be sufficient to condone the delay and, consequently, the appeal was also dismissed.

It was noted that though the Appellant claimed to be suffering from cardiac disease, no medical prescription was filed, and only a certificate issued by the concerned hospital was produced. Even the angiography report was not placed on record.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that other Appellants were also there, who could have filed the appeal within time without waiting for the present Appellant, but they chose to wait. Therefore, the impugned order, insofar as it dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay, did not call for interference.

The Court further held that once an appeal is dismissed on limitation, it is not available for the Appellate Tribunal to go into the merits. At the same time, the Court observed that delay in filing appeal can be condoned irrespective of the period of delay, but such condonation must be based on a sufficient and satisfactory explanation.

The order of the Adjudicating Authority confirming the provisional attachment of the Appellant’s property thus stood affirmed.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Brijesh Kumar v. State of Haryana (2014) 11 SCC 351[Para 30]
• Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhootnath Banerjee AIR 1964 SC1336
• Lala Matadin v. A. Narayanan (1969) 2 SCC 770
• Parimal v. Veena @ Bharti(2011) 3 SCC 545
• Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of BrihanMumbai (2012) 5 SCC 157[Para 38]; followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Brijesh Kumar v. State of Haryana (2014) 11 SCC 351 (para 30)
• General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corpn. Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim (1939-40) 67 IA 416 (para 31)
• P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556 (para 32)
• Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649 (para 33)
• Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (1962) 2 SCR 762 (para 35)
• Basawaraj v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 (para 37)
• Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhootnath Banerjee AIR 1964 SC 1336 (para 38)
• Lala Matadin v. A. Narayanan (1969) 2 SCC 770 (para 38)
• Parimal v. Veena @ Bharti (2011) 3 SCC 545 (para 38)
• Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (2012) 5 SCC 157 (para 38)
• Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu v. Gobardhan Sao (2002) 3 SC 195 (para 39)
• Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara v. Labour Court, Bhilwara (2009) 3 SCC 525 (para 52)
• State of Jharkhand v. Ashok Kumar Chokhani AIR 2009 SC 1927 (para 53)
• H. Guruswamy v. A. Krishnaiah [Civil Appeal No. 317 OF 2025, dated 8-1-2025] (para 54).