Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1140 (MP)

Hari Shankar Gurjar v. Union of India

2015-10-30

K.K.TRIVEDI, RAJENDRA MENON

body2015
ORDER 1. As common question of law and facts are involved in both these petitions and as the orders passed with regard to taking on record and permitting to adduce additional evidence under Order 41 rule 27 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a proceedings being held before the appellate Tribunal for Prevention of the Money Laundering Act, 2002, both these petitions have been filed, therefore, we propose to dispose of these petitions by this common order. Except for the fact that the dates of order passed rejecting the applications under 41 rule 27 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure are different, all other relevant facts are identical. In Writ Petition No.13196/2013, the impugned order Annexure P-4 is dated 3.7.2013 and in Writ Petition No.17882/2014, the impugned order Annexure P-4 is dated 24.1.2014. 2. Both the petitioners were proceeded against the orders passed by the adjudicating authority confirming the provisional attachment order under Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Aggrieved by the order passed by the adjudicating authority, appeal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was filed before the appellate Tribunal. In the matter pending before the Appellate Tribunal, applications were filed in both the appeals under Order 41 rule 27 Read with section 151 of CPC and it was indicated in these applications that all the documents which were relevant for adjudication of the dispute in question were seized by the Lokayukt Organization and were part of the proceedings held before the Court of Special Judge, Khandwa have not been produced by the petitioners as they were not available with them during the adjudication proceedings that took place before the adjudicating authority, it was stated that the petitioners have now received these documents, therefore, they be permitted to adduce additional evidence before the appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected both the applications on the ground that the petitioners have not given any particulars or relevant facts regarding due diligence being shown with regard to obtaining these documents and producing them when the matter was pending before the adjudicating authority. Indicating that no specific details with regard to the steps taken by the petitioners to produce these evidence before the adjudicating authority have been filed , both applications have been rejected. 3. Indicating that no specific details with regard to the steps taken by the petitioners to produce these evidence before the adjudicating authority have been filed , both applications have been rejected. 3. Shri Anil Khare, learned senior counsel for the petitioners emphasized before us that these documents were part of the proceedings before the Court of Special Judge, Khandwa and the petitioners submitted their reply before the adjudicating authority on the basis of their memory and personal knowledge, thereafter they tried to obtain these documents from the Special Court to file them before the adjudicating authority, however as they did not receive the documents, they could not do so, now as they have received the documents, it be permitted to be produced before the appellate Tribunal. 4. Shri Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the discretion exercised by the Tribunal being in accordance with law and as the petitioners have failed to show with details as to when the documents were received and as the petitioners have not given any particulars or relevant facts regarding exercise of due diligence for not producing the documents before the authority for adducing these evidence, in rejecting the applications, the Tribunal has not committed any error. 5. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and we find that merely because the petitioners were unable to given certain facts about dates or other steps taken with regard to obtaining these documents when the matter was pending before the adjudicating authority, it was not proper to reject the applications, the Tribunal should have granted one opportunity to the petitioners to adduce material in support of the applications under Order 41 rule 27 read with section 151 CPC and show the circumstances which prevents them from filing the same before the adjudicating authority. In rejecting the applications in the manner done without granting one opportunity to the petitioners, we find that an error has been committed by the Tribunal which may cause prejudice to the petitioners at later stage and therefore, in the interest of justice one opportunity should be granted to them. 6. In rejecting the applications in the manner done without granting one opportunity to the petitioners, we find that an error has been committed by the Tribunal which may cause prejudice to the petitioners at later stage and therefore, in the interest of justice one opportunity should be granted to them. 6. Keeping in view of the above, we allow these petitions and quash the impugned orders dated 3.7.2013 filed in Writ Petition No.13196/2013 and order dated 24.1.2014 filed in Writ Petition No.17882/2014 and remand the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the applications under Order 41 rule 27 read with section 151 of CPC afresh in accordance with law. The Tribunal shall grant one opportunity to the petitioners to file additional material or documents in support of relevant facts necessary for deciding the applications and after granting such opportunity, the applications be decided afresh in accordance with law. 7. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, final order in the appellate proceedings passed be kept in abeyance . 8. With the aforesaid, both these petitions stand disposed of.