The Delhi High Court has condoned a delay of 3,621 days (nearly ten years) in filing an application by the son of late Abdul Hameed Rehmani, permitting him to be impleaded as a legal heir to continue his father’s long-pending appeal under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA).
The bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma has observed that Sections 55 of FERA and 43 of FEMA explicitly recognize the right of legal representatives to continue proceedings in the event of death or insolvency.
The bench observed, ensuring that pending proceedings or appeals “shall not abate by reason of death” and that the legal heirs are entitled to be substituted as a matter of statutory right.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had issued a Show Cause Notice on June 12, 2001, alleging violations of Sections 8(1) and 14 of FERA between 1993 and 1997. Though FERA had been repealed in 2000 by the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), proceedings were continued under the saving provisions of Section 49(3) of FEMA.
In February 2002, the Special Director of Enforcement imposed penalties of ₹2 lakh each on the Centre and Rehmani, which were duly paid. However, the ED challenged this order before the Appellate Tribunal, which in July 2007 quashed the adjudication and remanded the case for fresh hearing. Rehmani and the Centre then filed separate appeals before the Delhi High Court in 2007, where interim protection was granted and the matter placed in the “regular matters” list in 2009.
The case remained unlisted for years, and Abdul Hameed Rehmani passed away in August 2013. It was only when the matter was revived for hearing in 2022-2023 that his son, Mohammad Rehmani, became aware of the pending appeal and moved to be substituted as the legal representative, along with an application seeking condonation of the 3,621-day delay.
The Directorate of Enforcement opposed the application, arguing that such an extraordinary delay was “inordinate and unexplained”, and that FEMA does not allow condonation beyond the statutory period provided under Section 35. It also contended that the right to appeal and to condone delay must arise strictly from the statute, and since FEMA lacked such provision, the application was not maintainable.
Rejecting the ED’s objections, the Court held that Sections 55 of FERA and 43 of FEMA explicitly recognize the right of legal representatives to continue proceedings in the event of death or insolvency. These provisions, the Court observed, ensure that pending proceedings or appeals “shall not abate by reason of death” and that the legal heirs are entitled to be substituted as a matter of statutory right.
Justice Sharma clarified that while limitation provisions under Section 35 of FEMA apply to filing appeals, they do not govern substitution of parties or the timeline for impleadment after death of an appellant. The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s recent pronouncements, including Om Prakash Gupta v. Satish Chandra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 291), to explain the procedural aspects of substitution and condonation of delay in similar contexts.
The Court accepted the applicant’s explanation that the case had been lying dormant in the “regular matters” list for more than a decade, with no hearing scheduled between 2009 and 2022. The applicant became aware of its pendency only when related criminal revision petitions were revived in August 2023.
Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma (2008) 8 SCC 321, Justice Sharma noted that litigants cannot be penalized for systemic delays in listing of cases in the High Courts, and that “there is no need for an appellant to keep track of whether the respondent is dead or alive when a matter lies in suspended animation for years.”
The Court found that sufficient cause had been established for the delay, and accordingly allowed the condonation application, enabling Mohammad Rehmani to continue his late father’s appeal.
The matter will now be heard on November 10, 2025, along with pending applications.
Case Details
Case Title: Abdul Hameed Rehmani v. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Case No.: CRL.A. 701/2007 with CRL.M.A. 29294/2023
Date: October 27, 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: RK Handoo
Counsel For Respondent: Vivek Gurnani
