Mandatory appellate limitation and pre-deposit rules under FERA cannot be relaxed beyond the statutory limit, leading to dismissal.

An appeal under FERA section 52(2) had to be filed within 45 days of service of the order, and delay could be considered only up to the statute's outer condonation limit; the appellate forum could not extend time beyond that boundary. The appeals filed after expiry of the permissible period were therefore not maintainable and were dismissed for delay. The same provision also made pre-deposit mandatory, subject only to dispensation for undue hardship. As the conditional deposit order was not complied with and no bona fide explanation was shown, the Tribunal held that the statutory consequence of non-compliance could not be ignored, and the appeals were also liable to dismissal on that ground.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeals, filed beyond the statutory period and beyond the outer limit for condonation, were maintainable; (ii) Whether failure to comply with the pre-deposit condition justified dismissal of the appeals.

Issue (i): Whether the appeals, filed beyond the statutory period and beyond the outer limit for condonation, were maintainable.

Analysis: Sub-section (2) of section 52 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 requires an appeal to be filed within 45 days of service of the order. The scheme further permits consideration of delay only up to the prescribed extended period, and the appellate forum cannot enlarge that limit beyond the statutory outer boundary.

Conclusion: The appeals filed after expiry of the permissible period were not maintainable and were liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to comply with the pre-deposit condition justified dismissal of the appeals.

Analysis: The statutory framework under section 52(2) makes pre-deposit the rule, subject only to dispensation on the ground of undue hardship. The conditional order requiring deposit was not complied with, and no bona fide explanation for non-compliance was shown. In such circumstances, the Tribunal held that it could not rewrite the statute or ignore the consequence attached to breach of the condition.

Conclusion: The appeals were liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed both on limitation and on failure to satisfy the mandatory condition for proceeding with the appeal, and were accordingly dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a fixed appellate period with a limited condonation window and also makes pre-deposit mandatory subject to dispensation only for undue hardship, the appellate forum cannot extend the limitation beyond the statutory maximum or ignore non-compliance with the deposit condition.

---