IMPORTANT POINTS
When service of Tribunal’s order is admitted and appeal has been filed on that basis, irregularity in service becomes inconsequential.
Appeal filed after extended period of limitation prescribed by the statute, would be time barred.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed against the final judgment and order dated 27.09.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in L.P.A. Nos.656 and 657 of 2011 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants herein and upheld the order dated 14.07.2011 passed by the Single Judge in W.P. [C] 1426 & 1439/1999.

3. The issue involved in these appeals is short and it relates to the question as to whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appellants’ appeals as being barred by time and was justified in holding that there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeals and secondly, whether the High Court was justified in upholding the order of the Tribunal.

4. Few relevant facts need to be mentioned to appreciate the short controversy.

5. An order was passed by the Competent Authority under Section 7 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “SAFEMA”) against the appellants on 14.07.1998 and 14.10.1998 in relation to their properties.

6. The appellants felt aggrieved of the aforementioned orders and filed appeals on 20.10.1998 under Section 12(4) of SAFEMA before the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”).

7. The limitation to file an appeal before the Tribunal is 45 days from the date of the service of the order as prescribed under SAFEMA. However, if the appeal is filed beyond the period of 45 days then on sufficient cause being shown, the Appellate Authority is empowered to condone the delay in filing the appeal only up to 60 days but not beyond the period of 60 days.

8. In this case, the appeals were filed beyond the period of 60 days, i.e., the appeals were filed on 81st day after the service of the order. The appellants, therefore, filed application for condonation of delay in the appeals alleging therein that there was a sufficient cause in filing the appeals beyond the period of limitation.

9. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as being barred by time. In other words, the Tribunal was of the view that even, according to the appellants’ own version mentioned in the appeals’ memo, there was no sufficient cause made out for condoning the delay. It was also held that since the appeals were filed beyond 60 days, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to condone such delay.

10. In other words, it was held that the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal is only when the appeal is filed beyond 45 days but not beyond 60 days. Since in this case, the appeals were filed on 81st day, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the period of 60th day. The Tribunal, therefore, did not find any apparent error to review their order in the absence of any power to review and further any error to rectify such order.

11. The appellants, felt aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, filed writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution before the High Court. By order dated 14.07.2011/27.07.2011, Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petitions.

12. Against the order of the Single Judge, the appellants filed intra court appeals. By impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the order passed by the Single Judge which has given rise to filing of the present appeals by way of special leave in this Court.

13. Heard Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel for the respondents.

14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeals.

15. In our opinion, when even according to the appellants, the orders impugned in the appeals before the Tribunal were served on them on 29/30th July 1998, then in such event, the question as to the manner in which the service was effected and whethe