2019 (12) TMI 1136 - AT - FEMA

Tribunal grants condonation for delay in filing legal heirs' substitution, imposes costs to proceed

The Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing for the substitution of Legal Heirs (LRs) of the deceased appellant, despite ... Condonation of delay in filing applications for substitution of Legal Heirs (LRs) of the deceased appellant - common application for substitutions of LRs has been filed on 01.11.2018 i.e. around 370 days from the date of death of the deceased appellant - HELD THAT:- There is a huge delay of 370 days in filing the application. It is not the case of the proposed appellants that they are not aware of the pendency of the appeals before Appellate Tribunal, it is also not the case that the proposed LRs were not running the Company or that the Company was closed after the sad demise of deceased appellant for one year. In the present case, there is not only a huge delay but also there is no sufficient explanation as to why there is a delay of 370 days in filing the application. In the present case, there is not only a huge delay but also there is no sufficient explanation as to why there is a delay of 370 days in filing the application. No doubt while dealing with the application for condonation of delay a liberal approach is to be made. While considering the application liberally it is also to be considered the length of delay, the bonafideness on the part of the appellants, non-deliberate action of the applicants, merit of the case and also the prejudice to be caused to the nonapplicants in favour of whom certain benefit has accrued. Heard and considered the application for the condonation of delay in filing the applications for substitutions of LRs, the reply filed by the respondent, the oral submissions and the materials available on record, if the application is not allowed then the merit of the appeals cannot be considered and they would be bound to pay the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. No doubt the allowing of the application would prejudice the benefits accrued to the respondent but that can be compensated by imposing cost of ₹ 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) in each appeal to be paid by the proposed appellants to the respondent within six weeks from the date of this order. Application for condonation of delay in filing the applications for substitutions of LRs are allowed subject to payment of ₹ 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand)in each appeals to be paid within six weeks of this order. Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing applications for substitution of Legal Heirs (LRs) of the deceased appellant.2. Adequacy of the reasons provided for the delay.3. Legal principles applicable to condonation of delay.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Applications for Substitution of Legal Heirs (LRs):The applications under consideration pertain to the condonation of a 370-day delay in filing for the substitution of LRs of the deceased appellant, who was involved in two appeals. The deceased, Shri M. Ramesh Babu, had filed appeals in his capacity as Managing Director of M/s. Sree Sanjay Agro Traders Pvt. Ltd. The application for substitution was filed by the company, represented by its authorized signatory, along with a death certificate.2. Adequacy of the Reasons Provided for the Delay:The appellants argued that the delay was due to the emotional suffering and oversight following the death of Shri M. Ramesh Babu. They claimed that the family was dejected and the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional. The respondent, however, countered that the appellants failed to show sufficient cause for the delay, citing that the counsel should have moved the application in a timely manner. The Tribunal noted that the reasons provided were general and insufficient to justify the 370-day delay.3. Legal Principles Applicable to Condonation of Delay:The Tribunal referenced several Supreme Court judgments to outline the principles for condonation of delay:- Katari Suryanarayana & Ors. Vs. Koppisetti Subba Rao & Ors. (2009): The Supreme Court emphasized that 'sufficient cause' should be understood in a reasonable, pragmatic, and liberal manner, depending on the case's facts and circumstances. The court should be more lenient in applications for setting aside abatement and should focus on the sufficiency of the explanation rather than the length of the delay.- Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others: The Court stated that even with a liberal approach, the explanation for the delay must be reasonable and bona fide. Negligence or inaction on the part of the applicant could lead to the denial of condonation.Conclusion:The Tribunal, after considering the explanations and the legal principles, was not convinced by the appellants' reasons for the delay. However, to ensure that the merits of the appeals could be considered and to avoid undue prejudice to the appellants, the Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay. This was subject to the payment of costs amounting to Rs. 25,000/- in each appeal to the respondent within six weeks. The applications for substitution of legal heirs were scheduled for hearing on 25th February 2020.