Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2009 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (5) TMI 536 - HIGH COURT OF DELHIWhether the impugned judgment and order of the Appellate Authority dated 9-3-2007 while dismissing the appeal only on the ground of limitation which justifies or requires any interference by this Court? Held that:- It is apparent that the Appellate Authority has not considered the provisions available under section 19 for condoning the delay even though the appeal in this case was not filed under FERA nor was it filed before FERA was repealed. Thus, the limitation which was prescribed under FERA was no more applicable to the appeal filed by the appellant in the present case. It is true that the appeal filed by the appellant was beyond limitation, jurisdiction was vested with the Appellate Authority by virtue of section 19 to consider the issue of condonation. It was for the Appellate Authority to have considered as to whether it is a fit case where the delay should be condoned or not. However, without applying the provisions contained under section 19 and merely relying upon the earlier provision is of FERA holding that appeal was barred by limitation, it is apparent that the Appellate Authority failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under section 19 of FEMA and to that extent the order becomes unsustainable. Accordingly, the case, is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to consider the plea of limitation in the light of section 19 of FEMA. In case the delay is condoned then to hear the matter afresh.
|