Appellant can challenge 17-year delay and jurisdiction under FERA vs FEMA on remand; proceedings to finish in 4 months

The HC upheld the Tribunal's remand order but clarified that on remand, the appellant may challenge the 17-year delay in adjudication from 1983 to 2000. The adjudicating authority must consider this delay and the appellant's jurisdictional challenge regarding adjudication under FERA, 1973 versus FEMA. If the authority finds it lacks jurisdiction, the show cause notice will be discharged. The court directed the authority to complete proceedings within four months from receipt of the order to avoid further delay.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the Appellate Tribunal's order remanding the matter due to a 16-year delay in passing the adjudication order, without considering relevant judicial precedents, amounts to non-application of mind, self-contradiction, and is therefore unsustainable in law.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is required to consider the jurisdictional limitations of adjudicating authorities not appointed with special powers under FEMA, 1999, and whether failure to do so results in statutory prejudice rendering the impugned order illegal and unsustainable.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

On the delay issue, the Court held that the Tribunal's failure to consider the delay argument was not a ground for interference since the point was not properly raised before the Tribunal; however, the Court clarified that upon remand, the Appellant shall be entitled to raise the issue of delayed adjudication, specifically the 17-year delay between issuance of the show cause notice and adjudication, which the adjudicating authority must decide "in light of the submissions made and the decisions cited before it."Regarding jurisdiction, the Court held that the question of whether the adjudicating authority constituted under FEMA has jurisdiction to adjudicate a show cause notice issued under FERA, 1973, is left open for determination upon remand. The adjudicating authority must decide all contentions, and if it concludes lack of jurisdiction, the show cause notice must be discharged.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied procedural principles requiring that issues must be properly raised and argued before the Tribunal to be entertained on appeal, emphasizing the need for filing appropriate applications to correct record or raise new points.The Court relied on precedent establishing that excessive delay in adjudication can render proceedings impermissible, referencing a recent decision of the same Court on delayed adjudication.On jurisdiction, the Court recognized the distinction between authorities appointed under FERA, 1973 and FEMA, 1999, noting that the Government of India lacks power to appoint adjudicating authorities with special powers under FEMA without legislative amendment, thereby potentially causing statutory prejudice if jurisdiction is assumed improperly.The Court maintained an open approach by leaving jurisdictional questions for fresh determination by the adjudicating authority, reflecting a cautious doctrinal stance on jurisdictional competence in transitioning regulatory regimes.Time-bound directions were issued to prevent indefinite pendency, balancing the interests of justice and procedural efficiency by mandating disposal within four months from production of the order.

---