Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the adjudication order imposes a huge penalty of Rs. 8 lacs upon the appellant, his valuable right of appeal should not be denied on a technical ground. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not in a position to prefer the appeal within the statutory period of limitation of 45 days, or even within 90 days, on account of the fact that the appellant, during his employment with Unicorp Overseas Limited, was appointed as a Director of the said Company. The violation of FERA pertained to the said Company and the appellant was fined on the ground that the appellant was one of its Directors. The appellant claimed that he had tendered his resignation on 29.07.1999 to the Chairman of the said Company, and sent another letter on 06.10.1999 seeking formal acceptance of his resignation. He claimed that he had also sent a communication to the Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana on 21.12.1999 informing the Registrar of Companies of his resignation from the said Company. That communication was accepted on 09.02.2000. The appellant claims that, thereafter, he shifted to Malaysia to serve another Company, namely, NetLink Ranve Infotech Sdn. Bhd. At Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. His claims is that notices sent to him by the respondents at his address in India were not received by him, since he was out of the country. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid background shows that the appellant was not liable to be panalised, and also explains the reason for the delay in preferring the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which was the appellants inability to do so.
