TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the orders dated 26.6.2006, 6.8.2009 and 28.7.2009. Along with Crl.A.No.1231/2011, two applications bearing Crl.M.A.No. 11750/2011 (seeking condonation of 507 days delay in filing the appeal) and Crl.M.A.No.11752/2011 (seeking condonation of 151 days delay in re-filing the appeal) are filed and along with Crl.A.1232/2011 also, there are two similar applications bearing Crl.M.A.no.11756/11 and Crl.M.A. No.11758/11. 3. By virtue of the present order, both these sets of applications are being considered and disposed of. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that two appeals bearing No. Crl.A.382/2005 and Crl.A.388/2005 were filed by Smt. Renu Vij and Sh. Ravinder Singh respectively, before Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange against a common adjudication order dated 4.3.2005 passed by the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, Govt. of India, New Delhi imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- against Renu Vij for contravention of Section 9(1) (d) read with Section 68 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and Rs. 40 lacs against Sh. Ravinder Singh for contravention of provisions of Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The reason fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een accordingly assailed i.e. 26.6.2006, the original disagreement order, 28.7.2007, the order passed by the third Member concurring with the view of the Chairperson and the order dated 6.8.2009 whereby the Division Bench, which had originally disagreed between themselves, allowed the appeals of Smt. Renu Vij and Sh. Ravinder Singh, in view of the opinion of the third Member. 8. The Department felt aggrieved by these three orders accordingly, preferred the present appeals against the said order of setting aside the imposition of penalty. The appeals are accompanied by two sets of applications in both the appeals. In Crl.A.No.1231/2011, an application bearing Nos.11750/2011 (seeking condonation of 507 days delay in filing the appeal) and in Crl.A.No.1232/2011 an application bearing Crl.M.A.no.11756/11 (seeking condonation of 507 days delay in filing the appeal from the date of final order i.e. 6.8.2009). It may be pertinent here to mention the averments made in the said applications, which read as under:- "( i ) That vide order dated 26.6.2006, 28.7.2009 and 6.8.2009 passed by learned Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (Ld. Tribunal) in Appeal no.382/2005 titled as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nature which are far from meeting the requirement of 'sufficient cause'. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the delay in filing the original appeal and in re-filing has taken place on account of the delay in normal decision making process which is bound to entail certain time at different levels and since the case of the appellants, prima facie, is very good, therefore, the delay in filing the appeals, both originally as well as in re-filing may be condoned and the appeals may be heard on merits. The learned counsel for the appellants has not cited any judgment in support of its contention. Very general submissions have been made that the public interest would suffer in case appeals are not heard on merits. 14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the applications. 15. An appeal according to Section 35 of FEMA has to be filed against the order of the Appellate Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of pronouncement of the order. The relevant Provisions of Section 35 of FEMA and Section 54 of FERA under which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile condoning the delay are:- ( i ) That the quantum of delay which is sought to be condoned by a party may not be material, what is material is the bona fides of the party seeking condonation of such a delay; ( ii ) The Court's approach for the condonation of delay under the heading of 'sufficient cause'' must be pragmatic and liberal, so as to advance substantial justice between the parties. It has also been observed that different standards cannot be applied to a private party and the Government body. Although some play in the joints so far as the functioning is concerned has to be given. 19. It may be pertinent here to refer to only one of the judgments of the Apex Court which is in line with the earlier judgments holding such an opinion and has dealt with all those previous judgments with regard to the condonation of delay. It has been observed in State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO AIR 2005 SC 2191 as under:- "The expression 'sufficient cause' must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring the appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll as the delay in re-filing, has been explained or not? Secondly, whether the appellants are bona fide or not, in filing the appeal. 21. So far as the averments made in the applications are concerned, it may be said that the applications have been drafted in a most casual manner and absolutely no details have been given for the reasons as to why a delay of 507 days had occurred. This is despite the fact although it has been observed hereinabove that the maximum period within which the appeal can be filed despite condonation of delay is only 120. Even if this Court wanted to show indulgence to the appellant, being a Government body, it finds it difficult to help the appellants as it has been guilty of gross negligence. In my opinion, the department sat over the files purposely and intentionally to help the respondents and then filed the appeals belatedly to get only a seal of legitimization. 22. No date, on which the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal was received by them or the dates on which the different officers dealt with the file has been given. The averments which have been made in such a casual manner seeking condonation of delay has been reproduced hereinabove, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
