High Court grants condonation of delay in FEMA appeal, falling under Section 49(5)(c)

The High Court analyzed an appeal under Section 49(5)(c) of the FEMA Act against a Tribunal's order, focusing on the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Court determined that the appeal fell under Section 49(5)(c) of the FEMA Act, allowing for the condonation of delay without a specific time limit, unlike Section 35. After excluding the period of a prior writ petition, the Court found the delay satisfactorily explained and granted the condonation. The appeal was directed to be registered and placed for admission, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal under Section 49(5)(c) of FEMA Act against Tribunal's order dated 2nd December, 2005. Condonation of delay in filing appeal. Applicability of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963. Interpretation of provisions under FERA and FEMA Acts. Comparison of Section 35 and Section 49(5)(c) of FEMA Act. Power of High Court to condone delay in filing appeal.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal under Section 49(5)(c) of the FEMA Act against a Tribunal's order dated 2nd December, 2005. The appellant initially filed a writ petition in January 2006, which was withdrawn in April 2006, allowing the appellant to file an appeal with grounds for condonation of delay. The respondents did not oppose the notice of motion, but orally argued against the Court's power to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

The appellant argued that the right of appeal is a substantive right vested in a party when proceedings are initiated, allowing for the condonation of delay. The appellant relied on a judgment from the Madras High Court to support this argument. The respondent contended that the appeal should be under Section 35 of the FEMA Act, but even if so, the delay could be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The Court analyzed the provisions of FERA and FEMA Acts, noting that the FEMA Act repealed FERA. The Court highlighted that under Section 49(5)(c) of the FEMA Act, there is no outer limit prescribed for condonation of delay, unlike Section 35 which has a sixty-day limit. The Court disagreed with the respondent's argument and held that the appeal falls under Section 49(5)(c) of the FEMA Act, giving the Court the power to condone the delay.

Considering the timeline of events, the Court excluded the period of the writ petition from the calculation of the delay, leaving a remaining period of 66 days. The Court found that the delay was explained satisfactorily and thus should be condoned. Consequently, the notice of motion was made absolute, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was directed to be registered and placed for admission, with no order as to costs.

---