Delhi High Court on Condonation of Delay and Substitution of Legal Representatives under FERA/FEMA.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court condoned a delay of over 3621 days in filing an application for impleadment of a legal heir in an appeal under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA). The Court held that under Sections 55 of FERA and 43 of FEMA, proceedings do not abate upon the death of an appellant and there is no prescribed limitation period for substitution of legal representatives. Given that the appeal had remained unlisted for over a decade, the delay was held to be bona fide and justified.

Background:

• A Show Cause Notice was issued in 2001 under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) to Abdul Kalam Azad Islamic Awakening Centre and its President Abdul Hameed Rehmani for alleged contraventions during 1993–1997.

• The Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty of ₹2,00,000 each in 2002. The Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) challenged the order, and the Appellate Tribunal remanded the case in 2007.

• Abdul Hameed Rehmani filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court in 2007, which was placed in the “regular matters” list in 2009 but remained unlisted for more than a decade.

• After the appellant’s death in 2013, his son Mohammad Rehmani moved an application in 2023 for substitution as legal representative—after 3621 days of delay.

Court’s Observations:

• The Court held that both FERA and FEMA contain specific provisions—Section 55 and Section 43 respectively—that allow continuation of proceedings by or against legal representatives after the death of a party, with no time limitation prescribed.

• The statutory scheme of FERA/FEMA operates as a self-contained code distinct from the CPC or CrPC, which prescribe strict limitation periods for substitution.

• The delay was not deliberate but arose because the appeal was never listed for hearing for several years.

• The applicant became aware of the pending appeal only when connected revision petitions were taken up in 2023.

• The Court relied on Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma, (2008) 8 SCC 321, noting that litigants cannot be faulted for not tracking dormant cases lying in cold storage for years.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Section 55, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) – Continuation of proceedings after death of party.

• Section 43, Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) – Similar provision permitting continuation by legal representatives.

• Article 227, Constitution of India – Supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.

The Court condoned the delay and allowed substitution of the legal heir, holding that the delay was supported by sufficient cause and the appeal should not abate merely due to procedural delay.

Citation: 2025:DHC:XXXXX

Case: Mohammad Rehmani (LR of Late Abdul Hameed Rehmani) v. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Criminal Misc. Application: CRL.M.A. 29294/2023 in CRL.A. 701/2007