Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMFOPA). The petitioners in WP No. 35469/2015, Mohd. Shabandri and Smt. Fatima Kousar Ismail, sought to quash the Tribunal's order dated 21.4.2015 in FPA No. 1/2013, FPA No. 1/2014 and FPA No. 2/2014, which rejected their application for condonation of delay. The petitioners in WP No. 28864/2015, Mr. Winston Tan and Mr. Gibran Tan, also challenged similar orders. The core issue was whether the Appellate Tribunal had the power to condone delay beyond the statutory period of 60 days prescribed under Section 12(2) of SAFEMFOPA. The petitioners argued that the Tribunal should have exercised its discretion to condone the delay, while the respondents contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to do so. The court analyzed Section 12 of SAFEMFOPA, which provides that an appeal must be filed within 60 days from the date of the order, and the proviso allows a further period of 30 days if sufficient cause is shown. The court held that the Tribunal has no power to condone delay beyond this total period of 90 days. Consequently, the court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the Tribunal's orders.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Statutory Period - Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, Section 12 - The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMFOPA has no power to condone delay beyond the 60-day period prescribed under Section 12(2) of the Act. The proviso to Section 12(2) allows a maximum of 30 days' extension, making the total permissible period 90 days. The Tribunal cannot entertain appeals filed beyond that period. (Paras 1-10)
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's order refusing to condone delay, as the Tribunal had correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the statutory period. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Tribunal under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 has the power to condone delay in filing an appeal beyond the statutory period of 60 days.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The orders of the Appellate Tribunal refusing to condone delay are upheld.
Law Points
- Limitation
- Condonation of delay
- Statutory period
- SAFEMFOPA
- Appellate Tribunal jurisdiction
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (07) 37
WP No. 35469 of 2015 (GM-RES) C/W WP No. 28864 of 2015 (GM-RES)
Adhitya Sondhi (Senior Counsel for Parashuram A.L.) for petitioners in WP 35469/2015; V.R. Datar for petitioners in WP 28864/2015; K. Arvind Kamath (ASGI) for respondents 1 & 2; V.R. Datar for respondents 3 & 4 in WP 35469/2015
Mohd. Shabandri, Smt. Fatima Kousar Ismail (in WP 35469/2015); Mr. Winston Tan, Mr. Gibran Tan (in WP 28864/2015)
Union of India, The Competent Authority, Mr. Winston Tan, Mr. Gibran Tan (in WP 35469/2015); Union of India, The Competent Authority (in WP 28864/2015)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders of the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMFOPA refusing to condone delay in filing appeals.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the impugned orders of the Appellate Tribunal and setting aside the rejection of the application for condonation of delay.
Filing Reason
The petitioners' appeals before the Appellate Tribunal were dismissed as time-barred, and the Tribunal refused to condone the delay.
Previous Decisions
The Competent Authority under SAFEMFOPA had passed orders forfeiting properties, against which appeals were filed belatedly. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the condonation of delay applications.
Issues
Whether the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMFOPA has the power to condone delay beyond the statutory period of 60 days.
Whether the High Court should interfere under Articles 226 and 227 with the Tribunal's order refusing to condone delay.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the Tribunal should have condoned the delay as sufficient cause was shown.
Respondents argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the statutory period of 60 days plus 30 days extension.
Ratio Decidendi
The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMFOPA has no power to condone delay beyond the total period of 90 days (60 days plus 30 days extension) as prescribed under Section 12(2) of the Act. The High Court declined to interfere under Articles 226 and 227.
Judgment Excerpts
The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMFOPA has no power to condone delay beyond the statutory period of 60 days.
Procedural History
The Competent Authority under SAFEMFOPA passed orders forfeiting properties. The petitioners filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal rejected the applications for condonation of delay. The petitioners then filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976: Section 12
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
