Statutory delay condonation limits under a later foreign exchange law override the repealed regime and bar extension beyond the outer limit.

A later special foreign exchange statute prevailed over the repealed law for appeals governed by its scheme, and the High Court's power to condone delay was confined to the statutory outer limit of sixty days. The saving provisions for repeal did not preserve the wider condonation regime of the earlier law because the later enactment showed a contrary legislative intention. The Limitation Act could not be used to enlarge that limit. The right to appeal remained substantive, but condonation beyond the prescribed period was only procedural and contingent, not vested as of right.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on appeals arising from proceedings initiated under the repealed foreign exchange law but decided by the Appellate Tribunal under the later enactment, the High Court could condone delay beyond sixty days by invoking the repealed law and the General Clauses Act, or whether its power was confined to the limitation scheme in the later enactment.

Analysis: The operative appellate forum was the Appellate Tribunal under the later enactment, and the appeals before the Court were therefore governed by the later statutory framework. The saving provisions were held not to preserve the unlimited delay-condonation regime of the repealed law because the later enactment, by its own text, restricted the High Court's power to entertain a delayed appeal only up to a further period not exceeding sixty days. The Court held that the language of the later enactment showed a different legislative intention and excluded any larger power under the Limitation Act or the repeal-saving rule. It further held that the right to file an appeal is substantive, but the right to seek condonation of delay beyond the statutory limit is procedural and contingent, not vested as a matter of right.

Conclusion: The High Court's power to condone delay was confined to sixty days, and delay beyond that period was not entertainable; the contrary view was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The legal position was settled in favour of application of the later enactment's restrictive limitation scheme, and the matters were sent back to the appropriate Bench for consideration within that framework.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later special statute expressly limits delay condonation in appeals and manifests a contrary intention, the saving provisions on repeal do not preserve the wider condonation power of the repealed statute, and the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to extend the statutory outer limit.

---