Delayed Impleadment Okayed In FERA / FEMA Appeals: Delhi High Court

In a significant procedural ruling, the High Court of Delhi has effectively paved the way for legal heirs to continue appeals pending under repealed and current foreign exchange laws, even when confronted with substantial delays. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma allowed an application for the impleadment of the son of the late Abdul Hameed Rehmani, despite a massive 3,621-day delay, by emphasizing that statutory rights to continue such appeals do not suffer from the same limitations as standard civil suits.

The Backdrop of the Dispute

The case originated from a Show Cause Notice issued way back in 2001 by the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) regarding alleged contraventions under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act ( FERA ), 1973. Following an adjudication order and a subsequent remand by the Appellate Tribunal, Abdul Hameed Rehmani appealed to the High Court in 2007. The appeal was eventually placed in the 'regular matters' category and remained in a state of 'suspended animation' for years.

Mohammad Rehmani, the son of the deceased appellant, filed for impleadment in 2023 after the court resumed hearing the connected revision petitions. The DoE vehemently opposed this, arguing an "inordinate and unexplained delay" without statutory backing for condonation.

The Court’s Reasoning: "Suspended Animation" of High Court Appeals

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s analysis distinguished these special statutory proceedings from standard Civil Procedure Code (CPC) timelines. The Court observed that while the Code of Civil Procedure and the Limitation Act provide a 90-day window for substitution, the governing statutes in this case— FERA , 1973 and the Foreign Exchange Management Act ( FEMA ), 1999—expressly provide that appeals shall not abate upon death.

The court noted that the "long non-listing of the matter" by the judicial system itself was a primary factor in the delay. By relying on the Supreme Court's observation in * Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma *, the Court highlighted the practical reality of high-burden courts:

> "When an appeal is so kept pending in suspended animation for a large number of years in the High Court without any date being fixed for hearing, there is no likelihood of the appellant becoming aware of the death of the respondent, unless both lived in the immediate vicinity or were related or the court issues a notice to him informing the death of the respondent."

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies that the right to continue an appeal is embedded within the statute, independent of general procedural limitations:

• Statutory Survival : “ Section 43 makes it abundantly clear that any proceeding, liability, or appeal arising under FEMA shall not abate upon the death or insolvency of a party.”
• Distinct Legal Framework : “The provisions governing the right of legal representatives to continue such appeal (i.e. Section 43 of FEMA , 1999 and Section 55 of FERA , 1973) do not stipulate any limitation period whatsoever.”
• Sufficient Cause : “The long non-listing of the matter, coupled with the absence of any proceedings during this period, provides a satisfactory and justifiable explanation for the delay.”

Implications

By allowing the impleadment, the High Court has reinforced the principle that access to justice should not be barred entirely due to systemic delays or the non-listing of long-pending matters. This precedent serves as a safeguard for legal heirs in specialized statutory appeals, ensuring that the death of a litigant does not lead to the automatic termination of proceedings where the statute explicitly provides for their continuation.

The Court has ordered the appeal to be listed on November 10, 2025, ensuring that the merits of the original dispute can finally be addressed after nearly two decades.