BAHUBALI S SHAHversusDEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
- Disposal
- 39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH
Holding
Both appeals are dismissed for the appellant’s default under Order 41 Rule 17 of the CPC.
Summary
Lok Prakashan Ltd filed two first appeals under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, challenging an Appellate Tribunal order that had reversed a 2009 adjudicating authority decision. The appeals were listed as old matters and the appellant’s counsel withdrew, after which no appellant or counsel appeared before the Gujarat High Court. The judges observed that the appellants showed no interest in pursuing the appeals. Consequently, the Court exercised its power under Order 41 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to dismiss the appeals for default. No order as to costs was made.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant's failure to appear before the Court amounts to a default justifying dismissal under Order 41 Rule 17 of the CPC.
- Whether appeals under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act can be dismissed solely on procedural non‑appearance.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedures. Order 41 Rule 17
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002s. 42
Subjects
Judgment
C/FA/2607/2011 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2607 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2606 of 2011
==========================================================
LOK PRAKASHAN LIMITED
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PS CHAMPANERI(214) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 09/07/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. Both these appeals under Section 42 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, are filed
against the order dated 24.06.2011 passed by the
Appellate Tribunal, allowing the respondent’s appeal by
reversing the order dated 26.09.2009 passed by the
Adjudicating Authority.
2. Both the appeals having been listed in the category
of old matters. It appears that, after withdrawal of the
appearance of learned counsel for the appellant, the
advocate notices were served to the respective
appellants. Despite of this, neither appellant, nor any
Page 1 of 2
C/FA/2607/2011 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2026
counsel on their behalf appeared to assist the court. Thus,
in our opinion, the appellants are not interested to pursue
the appeals. In such circumstances, we have no option but
to dismiss the appeals by exercising power under Order 41
Rule 17 of the CPC.
3. Accordingly, both the appeals stand dismissed for the
appellant’s default under Order 41 Rule 17 of the CPC.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
TAUSIF SAIYED
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: TAUSIFAHMED SAIYED(HC01401), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 10/07/2026 17:07:24
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.