KAMLESH ISHWARBHAI PATEL Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application the Appellant seeks condonation of delay of 166 days in filing the present appeal.

(2.) The Foreign Exchange Appellate Tribunal (in short The Tribunal) vide its order dated 2 nd February, 2007 in Appeal No. 121/1999 directed the Appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,00,50,000/- as pre-deposit failing which the appeal would not be entertained. Against the said order dated 2 nd February, 2007 of the Tribunal the Appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Gujarat which was returned for want of territorial jurisdiction on 7 th December, 2007 to be presented before the appropriate forum. Consequently, the Appellant preferred writ petition (civil) No. 7260/2007 before this Court on 29 th September, 2007 wherein this Court issued notice and stayed further proceedings before the Learned Tribunal. Vide order dated 30 th July, 2010 this Court disposed of the writ petition in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Shivhare Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2010 4 SCC 772holding that appropriate remedy would be by way of filing an appeal. On 2 nd August, 2010 the Appellant applied for a certified copy of the order which was delivered on 9 th August, 2010. The Appellant filed the present appeal on the 10 th February, 2011. The reasons for delay in filing the present appeal as stated on affidavit are that the Appellant is a resident outside Delhi and has limited means. It took some time for the Appellant to arrange necessary funds for the purpose of filing the appeal. Further, due to shifting of the Advocate's office, the file of the writ petition could not be traced and so there was some delay in tracing out the file. Thus, it is prayed that the delay of 166 days in filing the appeal be condoned.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Appellant relying upon Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Ors., 2005 4 SCC 480and Thirumalai Chemicals Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2011 6 SCC 739canvassed that the right of appeal is a substantive right whereas the law of limitation is a procedural law and thus the procedural law cannot override the substantive right. If there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay, this Court will exercise its powers and ensure that substantive justice is assured to the parties.