TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leged contravention of the provisions of Sections 8(1) and 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 [hereafter 'FERA, 1973'] on 12.06.2001. 3. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that FERA was repealed by the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 [hereafter 'FEMA, 1999'], with effect from 01.06.2000. However, Section 49(3) of FEMA, 1999 specifically provided that an adjudicating officer could take cognizance of any contravention under Section 51 of FERA, 1973 within a period of two years from the date of its repeal. Accordingly, in the present case, the Show Cause Notice had been issued in June 2001 for alleged contraventions of FERA, 1973 (since repealed) committed during the period 1993 to 1997. 4. Subsequently, on 08.02.2002, an adjudication order was passed by the Special Director, DoE, imposing a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs each on the Centre as well as on Abdul Hameed Rahmani under Section 50 of FERA, 1973, which was duly deposited by them in accordance with law. However, about two years thereafter, the DoE preferred a revision petition under Section 52(4) of FERA, 1973 read with Sections 19(6) and 49(4) of FEMA, 1999 seeking modification of the adjudication ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he matter continued to remain in the 'regular matters' category and was not taken up thereafter. Similarly, the revision petition preferred by the appellant, CRL.REV.P. 151/2007, came up for hearing after a long interval on 17.08.2023. 11. According to the applicant, once these matters were taken up again for hearing by this Court, he became aware of the pendency of the present appeal filed by his late father, and accordingly decided to pursue it by filing an application for his impleadment as legal heir of the deceased appellant. Along with the said application, he also filed the present application seeking condonation of delay in moving the impleadment application. 12. A reply was filed on behalf of the DoE to both applications, wherein it is contended that the impleadment application has been filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 3621 days, without any reason or circumstance being shown that could remotely justify such extraordinary delay. It is further urged that the application does not specify the provision of law under which condonation of delay is being sought. The DoE contends that where the statute does not provide for condonation of delay, such relief ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot provide for any extension of limitation beyond what is stipulated under Section 35, the present application seeking condonation of delay is not maintainable and deserves dismissal. 16. This contention, in the considered view of this Court, is misplaced and unmerited. It is important to note that both Section 35 of FEMA, 1999 and its corresponding Section 54 of FERA, 1973 (since repealed) provide for filing of an appeal before the High Court against specified orders of the Appellate Tribunal (under FEMA) or the Appellate Board (under FERA). Under Section 54 of FERA, 1973, the High Court cannot entertain an appeal if it was filed beyond sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Appellate Board, unless the High Court is satisfied that the appellant had been prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. On the other hand, Section 35 of FEMA, 1999 prescribes a similar period of limitation of sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal, however, it authorises the High Court to condone delay only up to a further period not exceeding sixty days, provided sufficient cause is shown. 17. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eath or insolvency such rights and obligations shall devolve on the legal representative of such person or the official receiver or the official assignee, as the case may be: Provided that a legal representative of the deceased shall be liable only to the extent of the inheritance or estate of the deceased." 21. Section 43 makes it abundantly clear that any proceeding, liability, or appeal arising under FEMA shall not abate upon the death or insolvency of a party, and the rights and obligations shall devolve upon the legal representatives or other competent substitutes. 22. It is therefore manifest from the above provisions that an appeal pending before the High Court against an order of the Appellate Tribunal or Appellate Board does not abate upon the death of the appellant, and the statute itself ensures that the legal representatives of the deceased appellant are entitled, as a matter of right, to be substituted in his place and to continue or pursue such appeal. 23. Consequently, the right to seek impleadment of legal heirs in such circumstances is not one that arises dehors the statute; rather, it is one that is expressly recognised and preserved within the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ys, being the period of limitation. Does it mean that the suit or appeal will not abate? The answer in view of the scheme of Order XXII cannot be in the negative. In the event the plaintiff/appellant derives knowledge of death immediately after the suit/appeal has abated, the remedy available is to file an application seeking setting aside of the abatement, the limitation wherefor is stipulated in Article 121 and which allows a period of 60 days. Therefore, between the 91st and the 150th day after the death, one has to file an application for setting aside the abatement. On the 151st day, this remedy becomes time-barred; consequently, any application seeking to set aside the abatement must then be accompanied by a request contained in an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the application for setting aside the abatement. Thus, the total time-frame for filing an application for substitution and for setting aside abatement, as outlined in Articles 120 and 121 of the Limitation Act, is 150 (90 + 60) days. The question of condonation of delay, through an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, arises only after this period and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... providing that an appeal shall not abate by reason of death, and that all rights and obligations of the deceased shall devolve upon his legal representatives. 28. In view of this statutory scheme, the right of the present applicant to seek substitution as legal representative and to continue the present appeal cannot be curtailed, for such a right is specifically preserved under the governing statute. 29. Be that as it may, even examining the present case from the standpoint of reasonableness, the circumstances of the present case clearly indicate that no undue delay can be attributed to the applicant. The record shows that the present appeal had been heard initially, and an interim order had been granted in favour of the appellant. Thereafter, the case was placed in the category of 'regular matters as per its own turn' in the year 2009, and it was not taken up for hearing till the year 2022, when it was again placed in the same category after merely issuing court notice to the counsels. The appellant, Abdul Hameed Rahmani, had passed away in 2013. Given that the appeal had not been listed for hearing at any time between 2009 and 2022, it cannot be said that it was unreasona....