The issue involved in these appeals is short and it relates to the question as to whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appellants appeals as being barred by time and was justified in holding that there was numbersufficient cause for companydoning the delay in filing the appeals and secondly, whether the High Court was justified in upholding the order of the Tribunal.
Few relevant facts need to be mentioned to appreciate the short companytroversy.
The clear admission was to the following effect that the said order dated 14.07.1998 was received by the appellant sometime around 29 30th of July, 1998.
However, if the appeal is filed beyond the period of 45 days then on sufficient cause being shown, the Appellate Authority is empowered to companydone the delay in filing the appeal only up to 60 days but number beyond the period of 60 days.
By impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the order passed by the Single Judge which has given rise to filing of the present appeals by way of special leave in this Court.
In this case, the appeals were filed beyond the period of 60 days, i.e., the appeals were filed on 81 st day after the service of the order.
Heard Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned senior companynsel for the appellants and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior companynsel for the respondents.
The appellants felt aggrieved of the aforementioned orders and filed appeals on 20.10.1998 under Section 12 4 of SAFEMA before the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal .
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as being barred by time.
The appellants, felt aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, filed writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution before the High Court.
In other words, the Tribunal was of the view that even, according to the appellants own version mentioned in the appeals memo, there was numbersufficient cause made out for companydoning the delay.
The appellants, therefore, filed application for companydonation of delay in the appeals alleging therein that there was a sufficient cause in filing the appeals beyond the period of limitation.
By order dated 14.07.2011/27.07.2011, Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petitions.
Against the order of the Single Judge, the appellants filed intra companyrt appeals.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record of the case, we find numbermerit in the appeals.
It was also held that since the appeals were filed beyond 60 days, the Tribunal had numberjurisdiction to companydone such delay.
Paragraph 4 of the said companydonation of delay application reads as under The impugned order dated 14.07.1998, was served on the appellant on 29/30th July, 1998, and the appellant should have preferred an appeal within 45 days therefrom.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2018.04.20 These appeals have been filed against the final 154226 IST Reason judgment and order dated 27.09.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in L.P.A. Nos.656 and 657 of 2011 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants herein and upheld the order dated 14.07.2011 passed by the Single Judge in W.P. C 1426 1439/1999.
A companydonation of delay application was also filed alongwith the said appeal before the said Tribunal.
The limitation to file an appeal before the Tribunal is 45 days from the date of the service of the order as prescribed under SAFEMA.
The appellants are illiterate and paradanashini widows and the appellant No.
An order was passed by the Competent Authority under Section 7 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators forfeiture of Property Act, 1976 hereinafter referred to as SAFEMA against the appellants on 14.07.1998 and 14.10.1998 in relation to their properties.
