3621-Day Delay in Impleadment Examined: Delhi HC Condones Delay and Allows Son to Continue Late Father’s FERA Appeal [Read Order]

The High Court of Delhi, condoned a delay of 3621 days in filing an impleadment application and permitted the legal heir (son) of the deceased applicant (father) to continue the pending Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ( FERA ) proceedings.

Abdul Hameed Rehmani, appellant-assessee, had passed away, and his legal heir Mohammad Rehmani sought condonation of a delay of 3621 days in filing an application for his impleadment (CRL.M.A. 29293/2023) to pursue the appeal.

The facts were that a Show Cause Notice had been issued on 12.06.2001 by the Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, to the Abdul Kalam Azad Islamic Awakening Centre and its President, Abdul Hameed Rahmani, for alleged contraventions under the repealed FERA, 1973, committed during 1993-1997, which were still actionable under Section 49(3) of FEMA, 1999. An adjudication order dated 08.02.2002 imposed a penalty of ₹2 lakhs each, which they deposited.

The Directorate of Enforcement later filed a revision petition, and on 24.07.2007, the Appellate Tribunal quashed the adjudication order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. Aggrieved thereby, separate appeals, including CRL.A. 701/2007, were filed before the High Court. Interim protection was granted in 2008 and made absolute in 2009, after which the matter remained pending as a ‘regular matter.’

Related revision petitions also remained pending with interim protection. The matters were not taken up after 2009 and 2013, respectively. Meanwhile, the applicant ( Abdul Hameed Rahmani) passed away on 20.08.2013.

After a long interval, the appeal was listed again in 2022, and the connected revision petition in 2023. Upon learning of the pendency, the legal heir, Mohammad Rehmani, filed an application seeking his impleadment along with the present application for condonation of delay.

A reply had been filed by the DoE stating that the impleadment application had been moved after an unexplained delay of 3621 days and that no provision of law had been cited to justify condonation.

It argued that since the power to condone delay flowed from the statute itself and FEMA, 1999 did not permit condonation beyond Section 35, the request was not maintainable. It was further contended that litigants were required to remain vigilant about their rights, and having slept over them for years, the applicant could not now revive the matter.

In rejoinder, the applicant submitted that the appeal and connected revision petitions had remained in the ‘regulars’ category and were taken up after a long gap only in 2022 and 2023. He came to know of the pendency of the case only then and promptly filed the impleadment and delay condonation applications in October 2023.

He further contended that the statutory scheme under Section 55 of FERA, 1973 and Section 43 of FEMA, 1999 ensured continuation of proceedings through legal representatives, and thus the appeal did not abate on account of the appellant’s death.

The Court heard the arguments and examined the case record. It noted that the DoE had opposed the request for condonation of delay on the ground that FEMA, 1999 did not empower the Court to extend the limitation period beyond what was provided under Section 35. Therefore, according to the DoE, the application was not maintainable.

The Court rejected this objection. It observed that Section 35 of FEMA and Section 54 of FERA dealt only with appeals before the High Court and did not govern situations arising from the death of an appellant or applications for substitution of legal representatives.

The statutory right of legal heirs to continue pending proceedings had instead been specifically preserved under Section 55 of FERA and Section 43 of FEMA. These provisions ensured that appeals did not abate on the death of the applicant and legal representatives were entitled to step in as a matter of right.

The High Court held that this right flowed directly from the statute and was not subject to any prescribed limitation period. It found that Section 43 of FEMA clearly provided for the continuation of rights and liabilities even after death, with the legal representative being liable only to the extent of the estate inherited. Thus, the DoE’s argument did not merit acceptance.

The Court further observed that, even if general procedural rules relating to substitution and limitation were considered, the delay in the present case stood justified. The appeal had been filed in 2007 and placed in the regular list in 2009, thereafter remaining unlisted for nearly thirteen years.

The applicant had passed away in 2013, and it was only after the matter resurfaced in 2022-2023 that the applicant became aware of the pendency of the appeal and promptly sought impleadment. The Court relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma, which recognised that parties could not reasonably be expected to monitor pending appeals that remained dormant for years.

Considering the statutory framework and the applicant’s explanation, the Court found that sufficient cause had been shown for condonation of delay. It accordingly allowed the application for substitution and condonation of delay, disposed of CRL.M.A. 29294/2023, and directed that the appeal be listed with the connected applications on 10.11.2025. The Court also directed the judgment to be uploaded on the website.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates