Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/2131/2009 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2131 of 2009
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4415 of 2009
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 3724 of 2010
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2131 of 2009
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1988 of 2010
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 323 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1990 of 2010
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 326 of 2010
With
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 52 of 2010
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4416 of 2009
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1901 of 2010
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 305 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1989 of 2010
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 324 of 2010
With
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 305 of 2010
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4422 of 2009
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 11303 of 2009
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2131 of 2009
With
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 32 of 2010
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4417 of 2009
With
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 326 of 2010
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4425 of 2009
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 2458 of 2010
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 32 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 54 of 2010
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 52 of 2010
With
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 323 of 2010
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4423 of 2009
With
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 324 of 2010
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4424 of
2009
=======================================================
NARMADA
MANEKLAL PANCHAL, DECEASED THRO DAUGHTER PRAMILABEN - Appellant(s)
Versus
DEPUTY
DIRECTOR - DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=======================================================
Appearance :
MR
PERCY KAVINA, SR. COUNSEL WITH MR NM KAPADIA for Appellant(s) : 1,
MR
PS CHAMPANERI for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
NOTICE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=======================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 22/11/2010
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)
In
all these appeals, as similar orders are challenged, they have been
heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. It
appears that the adjudicating authority passed different orders under
the provisions of Section 8(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering
Act, 2002. Those orders were challenged by different persons,
appellants herein, in their respective writ petitions. One of the
petitioners – Smt. Narmada Maneklal Panchal died during the
pendency of the case, which fact was brought to the notice of the
learned Single Judge. The counsel for the appellant brought to the
notice of the Court that the authority had not given any reason for
passing the order and has ignored the contents of the reply though
the adjudicating authority is under duty to take into consideration
the same. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 19th
June, 2009, noticing the aforesaid fact, without any observation,
dismissed the writ petition.
3. In
the case of appellant – Smt. Pushpa Deepak Shah though the
petitioner had not died, on presumption that the petitioner had died,
the learned Single Judge, by order dated 19th June, 2009
passed similar order, but somehow observed that the petitioner –
Smt. Pushpa Deepak Shah would raise the contentions before the
appellate authority. It was reported that the said petitioner has not
died.
4. In
another case of appellant – Smt. Roopal Naresh Panchal, similar
order was passed on 22nd July, 2010 wherein, without
expressing any opinion, the writ petition was dismissed stating that
the petitioner has alternative remedy.
5. In
other case of appellants – Smt. Smita Rajesh Panchal and others
also, similar orders have been passed.
6. We
have noticed that in the case of Smt. Narmada Maneklal Panchal, the
petitioner had died. However, without any ground and without giving
any liberty to the heirs, the writ petition was dismissed. Therefore,
the writ petition preferred by Smt. Narmada Maneklal Panchal i.e.
Special Civil Application No.4415 of 2009 is required to be remitted
back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration. In other
cases also, having noticed that similar non-speaking orders have been
passed, we are of the opinion that all the cases should be remitted
back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration. We,
accordingly, set aside the orders passed in Special Civil Application
No.4415 of 2009 dated 19th June, 2009, Special Civil
Application No.4416 of 2009 dated 19th June, 2009, Special
Civil Application No.4417 of 2009 dated 19th June, 2009
and Special Civil Application Nos.4422 of 2009 to 4425 of 2009 dated
22nd July, 2009.
Let
the cases be listed before the learned Single Judge on 13th
December, 2010.
All
the Letters Patent Appeals and Civil Applications stand disposed of.
[
S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, CJ.]
[K.M.THAKER,
J.]
kdc
Top