Accrued remedies under repealed foreign exchange law survive tribunal substitution; delay must still be judged by reasonableness.

Revised petitions under the repealed foreign exchange law were held maintainable before the substituted tribunal because the saving and transfer provisions preserved accrued remedies and pending proceedings. In the absence of an express limitation period, the revisional power had to be exercised within a reasonable time, but the delay was not treated as fatal on the facts. The adjudication exonerating the respondents from abetment was set aside because the earlier authority had not adequately examined their role as clearing agents or the evidence linking them to the main contravenor, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether revision petitions under the repealed foreign exchange law remained maintainable before the substituted tribunal after repeal and transfer of forum; (ii) whether the petitions were liable to be rejected for unexplained delay and absence of an express limitation period; and (iii) whether the adjudication order exonerating the respondents from abetment required interference and remand.

Issue (i): whether revision petitions under the repealed foreign exchange law remained maintainable before the substituted tribunal after repeal and transfer of forum.

Analysis: The saving and transfer provisions were construed to preserve proceedings arising under the repealed enactment. The repeal did not extinguish remedies already available under the old law, and the substituted forum was treated as competent to entertain such revision proceedings in continuation of the original adjudication. The forum change was held not to defeat the remedy where the cause, order, and statutory right all arose under the repealed regime.

Conclusion: The revision petitions were maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the petitions were liable to be rejected for unexplained delay and absence of an express limitation period.

Analysis: Although no specific limitation period governed the revision power, the petition had to be brought within a reasonable time. The unexplained delay was examined against the surrounding circumstances, and the absence of waiver or acquiescence was considered material. On that factual assessment, the delay was not treated as fatal to maintainability.

Conclusion: The petitions were not rejected on the ground of delay.

Issue (iii): whether the adjudication order exonerating the respondents from abetment required interference and remand.

Analysis: The order below was found to have given insufficient consideration to the respondents' role as clearing agents and to the evidentiary material suggestive of association with the main contravenor. The reasoning for exoneration was considered inadequate, and the matter was held to require a fuller factual and legal appraisal by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The exoneration was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The tribunal upheld the maintainability of the revisions, declined to treat delay as a bar, and sent the matter back for reconsideration on merits before the adjudicating authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A repeal followed by substitution of the governing statute does not, by itself, destroy accrued remedies or pending/revivable proceedings under the old law, and where no statutory limitation is prescribed, revisional action must nonetheless be taken within a reasonable time assessed on the facts of the case.

---