Dismissed

FPA-35/MDS/2015 of Ms. Jisha Jinnah v/s The Competent Authority, Chennai

ATFP13 Feb 2018FPA-35/MDS/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal filed under Section 12 of SA FE MA regarding property forfeiture proceedings. The court held that the appeal was barred by limitation as it was filed significantly beyond the prescribed 60-day period, without power to extend further.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed on the grounds of limitation as it was filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 12 of SAFEMA.

FPA-35/MDS/2015 of Ms. Jisha Jinnah v/s The Competent… — Banking and Recovery | ATFP (2018)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

¶2

(UNDER SECTION 12 OF SMUGGLER AND FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANIPULATORS ACT, 1976)

¶3

Decision Dated: 13.02.2018

¶4

FPA-35/MDS/2015

¶5

Ms. Jisha Jinnah … Appellant Versus The Competent Authority, Chennai … Respondent

¶6

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶7

For the appellant	: Shri Adolf Mathew, Advocate
For the respondent	: Shri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Joint Commissioner
CORAM
SMT ANANYA RAY	: MEMBER

¶8

JUDGMENT

¶9

FPA-35/MDS/2015

¶10

The application for condonation of delay came up for hearing on

¶11

06.02.2018.

¶12

The learned counsel for the appellant Shri Adolf Mathew, Advocate stated that the impugned order in original was passed on 10.03.2014 and the appeal against the same was filed on 20.11.2015. Hence it is

¶13

FPA-35/MDS/2015

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

after the stipulated period given in the Smuggler and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereafter called SAFEMA). He however stated that since the order is prima-facie illegal and lacks jurisdiction therefore, the question of any delay does not arise. He referred to Section 6 of SAFEMA stating that the reason for issuing a notice under Section 6 has to be recorded which in the present case has not been done. Hence, it not only contravenes the provisions of the law but is also against the principles of natural justice. He relied on the following judgments:

¶16

i) Mr. Gopinath Ganpat Rao Vs. State of Maharashtra 2007 (1) MHLJ 819. ii) Mr. Bajranglal Agarwala Vs. Competent Authority (1991)-IIOLR-509. iii) P.P Abdulla and Anr. Vs. Competent Authority (2007) – IISupreme Court Cases -510. iv) Shekh Mohd. Murge Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) – IVMAHL.J.771.

¶17

He summarized by stating that it is a settled principal of law that the order or decree which has been passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and therefore the question of limitation will not arise.

¶18

In response the learned representative of the respondent stated that this application was for condonation of delay and hence, the question of jurisdiction and merits was not at the argument stage as yet. He also stated that the proceedings under SAFEMA where initiated against the appellant in view of the conviction of her father Shri T.H.

¶19

FPA-35/MDS/2015

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

Jinna under Section 135(i)(ii) of the Customs Act 1962 for illegally dealing in foreign currency of value of Rs. 26,70,000/- and therefore the proceedings initiated under SAFEMA are fully valid and the petitioner falls within the definition of Section 2(2)(c), she being the daughter of the person who was convicted under the Customs Act 1962. He also stated that Section 6 of SAFEMA states that there should be reason to believe of the Competent Authority which has to be recorded in writing, but it does not stipulate communication of the same.

¶22

Without prejudice to above, the representative of the respondent stated that in the present appeal there has been a delay in filing the appeal which was to be filed within 45 days and maximum of 60 days from the date on which the impugned order dated 10.03.2014 was served on the appellant. The delay is of more than one and a half years. This is a fact which has not been disputed by the appellant. Moreover, he has drawn attention to their counter affidavit dated 08.04.2016 and the Exhibit R1 and R2 as attached to the same, which shows that the order was sent to the appellant by speed post on the same day i.e. 10.03.2014 and was acknowledged in the acknowledgment due.

¶23

I have examined the case and also heard the submissions made. As per Section 12 of SAFEMA, 1976 an appeal has to be filed within 45 days from the date on which the order is served and if the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal on time, a further period of 15 days that is up to 60 days could be granted by the Appellate Tribunal. In this case it is an accepted fact that the appeal has been filed much beyond the statutory period. I am bound by the law. There is no

¶24

FPA-35/MDS/2015

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

provision under which such an extension can be given for filing an appeal beyond 60 days. The submission of the appellant on merits has not been examined since the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of limitation itself.

¶27

On the basis of the above the appeal is dismissed having been filed much beyond the period prescribed under Section 12 of SAFEMA, 1976.

¶28

(Ananya Ray) Member

¶29

New Delhi, 13^th February, 2018. ‘K’

¶30

FPA-35/MDS/2015

¶31

Page 4 of 4

FPA-35/MDS/2015 of Ms. Jisha Jinnah v/s The Competent Authority, Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-35/MDS/2015 of Ms. Jisha Jinnah v/s The Competent Authority, Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases