9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 28.10.2003. CRL.M.A.18825/2011 (delay) in CRL.A. 1503/2011 2. The application has been moved for condonation of delay of 775 days in filing the appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant (Enforcement Directorate) urged that the Appellate Tribunal's order dated 21.08.2009 was communicated to the office of the Enforcement Directorate on 17.09.2009. The decision to file appeal was taken at various levels which consumed valuable time. There was no intentional delay on the part of the appellant. 4. I have considered the submissions of the appellant and have examined the record. Apparently, the present appeal has been filed after an inordinate delay of 775 days. Section 35 of FEMA permits the appeal to be filed within 60 days from the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m any vested right claiming that he should be governed by the old provision pertaining to period of limitation. Procedural law is retrospective meaning thereby that it will apply even to acts or transactions under the repealed Act. 15. Law on the subject has also been elaborately dealt with by this Court in various decisions and reference may be made to few of those decisions. This Court in Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry and Ors. AIR 1957 SC 540, New India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Shanti Mishra (1975) 2 SCC 840, Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 602; Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 16; Shyam Sundar and Ors. v. Ram Kumar and Anr. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is already barred on the date of their coming into operation, nor do they have effect of extinguishing a right of action subsisting on that date. Bennion on Statutory Interpretation 5th Edn.(2008) Page 321 while dealing with retrospective operation of procedural provisions has stated that provisions laying down limitation periods fall into a special category and opined that although prima facie procedural, they are capable of effectively depriving persons of accrued rights and therefore they need be approached with caution. 25. The appellate Board under FERA, it may be noted stood dissolved and ceased to function when FEMA was enacted. Therefore, any appeal against the order of the adjudicating officer made under FERA, after FEMA came ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of any provision to the contrary, the law in force on the date of the institution of the appeal, irrespective of the date of accrual of the cause of action for the original order, will govern the period of limitation. 26. Section 52(2) can apply only to an appeal to the appellate Board and not to any appellate tribunal. Therefore, irrespective of the fact that the adjudicating officer had passed the orders with reference to the violation of the provisions of FERA, as the appeal against such order was to the appellate tribunal constituted under FEMA, necessarily Section 19(2) of FEMA alone will apply and it is not possible to import the provisions of Section 52(2) of FERA. As we are not concerned with the appeals to Appellate Board, but a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e prescribed by FEMA only would be applicable in respect of an appeal filed under FEMA though cause of action arose under FERA. In fact, the time limit prescribed under FERA was taken away under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 19 and the Tribunal has been conferred with wide powers to condone delay if the appeal is not filed within forty-five days prescribed, provided sufficient cause is shown. Therefore, the findings rendered by the Tribunal as well as the High Court that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the date prescribed under FERA is not a correct understanding of the law on the subject." 7. In 'Union of India vs. Ashok J.Ramsinghani', 2011 (4) ALLMR 45, the Bombay High Court held : "16. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if it is filed after the expiry of 60 days of the date of communication of the decision or order of Appellate Tribunal unless the High Court is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Even if provisions of Section 54 are taken into consideration, there is no sufficient ground made out by the appellant to file the appeal after an inordinate delay of 775 days. The delay has not been explained. The reasons given by the appellant for delay in filing the appeal do not constitute 'sufficient cause'. Rather it reveals that there was inaction and negligence on the part of the various officers. Nothing has been explained in the application as to at what specific level the delay to take decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
