The court ruled that strict compliance with statutory time limits is mandatory, and substantial justice cannot override clear legislative provisions regarding delay in filing appeals.

JUDGMENT :

(Ashutosh Shastri, J.)

1. By way of these applications, the applicant has prayed for condonation of delay of 38 days which has occurred in preferring substantive First Appeals challenging the order dated 3.9.2019 passed by learned Appellate Tribunal (PMLA), New Delhi whereby learned Appellate Tribunal has set aside the order of adjudicating authority dated 1.3.2018 for confirming the attached properties under Original Complaint No.819 of 2017 dated 11.10.2017 issued by the Directorate of Enforcement. The applications are submitted with an explanation as reflecting in paragraphs 3 and 4 basically and pursuant to Rule having been issued on 17.3.2020 on Civil Application, affidavit-in-reply is filed opposing the condonation of delay. The record indicates that against the said affidavit-in-reply, affidavit-in-rejoinder as well as Sur-Rejoinder have also been submitted on record and since pleadings have been completed, learned advocates have requested the Court to take up the Civil Application for its disposal in accordance with law.

2. With the aforesaid background, learned advocate Mr. Sid Dave for Mr. Devang Vyas, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the applicant and learned senior advocate Mr. N.D. Nanavaty with Ms. Disha N. Nanavaty appearing for the respondent have been heard.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Siddharth Dave appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that First Appeal has been filed raising issue on law and facts and has substantively challenged the order passed by learned Appellate Tribunal (PMLA), New Delhi dated 3.9.2019 and according to Mr. Dave, considering serious controversy involved in the present proceedings, a brief delay of 38 days may kindly be condoned.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Dave has drawn our attention to the explanation which has been put forth and has submitted that delay has occurred not with any intent but on account of the circumstance beyond the control and as such since administrative difficulties in between cropped up, as indicated, in seeking legal opinion to prefer an appeal, some delay without any malafide intent has occurred and as such has requested that instead of disposal of the main substantive appeal on technicality, appeal may be heard on its merits in accordance with law and as such has requested that this few days’ delay may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Dave has submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that delay must be construed liberally unless there is any malafide intent and here in absence thereof, this brief delay of 38 days may kindly be condoned. It has been submitted that it is a settled position of law that whenever substantial justice is pitted against technical consideration, substantial justice must be given a predominance and therefore, keeping in view that salutary principle, delay may kindly be condoned which would meet the ends of justice.

6. As against this, learned senior advocate Mr. N.D. Nanavati appearing on behalf of the respondent has vehemently opposed the delay condonation application by filing affidavit-in-reply and has submitted that when Statute has prescribed a particular period, beyond the said period, Court cannot pass any order by condoning t