Limitation and condonation of delay: vague explanations and gross negligence barred the appeals as time-barred.

Delays in filing and re-filing appeals were not condoned because the Department's applications were vague and lacked particulars of the dates and steps taken to explain the delay. The Court applied the limitation periods under section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and held that no sufficient cause was shown for either the 507-day filing delay or the 151-day re-filing delay. Although limitation law may be construed liberally in appropriate cases, that indulgence was unavailable where the conduct reflected gross negligence and lack of bona fides. The appeals were therefore barred by time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delays in filing and re-filing the appeals could be condoned on the facts pleaded by the Department.

Analysis: The Court held that the appeals were governed by the limitation period under section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. It found that the applications for condonation were vague, lacking particulars of the dates and steps taken, and did not disclose sufficient cause for either the 507-day delay in filing or the 151-day delay in re-filing. The Court accepted that limitation law may receive a liberal construction in appropriate cases, but held that such indulgence was unavailable where the applicant's conduct showed gross negligence and lack of bona fides. It also noted that expiry of limitation created a vested right in the opposite party.

Conclusion: The delays were not condoned and the appeals were held to be barred by time.

---