Inordinate delay and prior Supreme Court adjudication on merits bar reopening of property forfeiture proceedings.

Petitioner No. 1 was detained under COFEPOSA in 2003 for illegal foreign exchange transfers

Consequently, the Competent Authority (CA) initiated proceedings under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA), serving notices under Section 6(1) to the Petitioners regarding their residential property

Despite participating in initial proceedings, the Petitioners sold the property to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in February 2005 and subsequently became untraceable

On 23.06.2005, the CA ordered the forfeiture of the property, declaring the sale null and void under Section 11

The purchasers unsuccessfully litigated the matter up to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the forfeiture and the invalidity of the sale in 2012

In 2014, the Petitioners filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal with a nine-year delay, claiming they were never served the forfeiture order and only gained knowledge through a newspaper publication

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals due to inordinate unexplained delay, leading to these Writ Petitions

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the applications for condonation of a nine-year delay in filing appeals

2. Whether the forfeiture order was invalid due to alleged non-service or non-compliance with the substituted service procedure under Section 22(b) of SAFEMA

3. Whether the Petitioners could re-agitate the merits of the forfeiture or seek relief under Section 9 (fine in lieu of forfeiture) after the matter attained finality in the Supreme Court

The court applied Section 12(4) of SAFEMA regarding the limitation period for appeals and Section 22(b) concerning substituted service by affixture

It relied on Section 11 of SAFEMA, which renders transfers of property null and void after a Section 6 notice

The court followed the principle from State of Rajasthan v. Nav Bharat Construction Co. and G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, holding that "sufficient cause" for condonation does not include gross negligence or lack of bona fides.

It further applied the Doctrine of Finality and Res Judicata as elucidated in M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka, Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Constructive Res Judicata), and the binding nature of Supreme Court precedents under Article 141 of the Constitution as per South Central Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society v. B. Yashodabai.

The Court found the Petitioners' claim of nine-year ignorance of the forfeiture order "inconceivable" and a "deliberate attempt to circumvent the law"

It noted that the Petitioners were active participants in the CA proceedings but vanished after withdrawing sale proceeds in cash

Regarding service, the Court held that a party cannot benefit from their own evasive conduct; since the Petitioners deliberately made themselves untraceable, the CA's efforts at the last known address and service by affixture complied with Section 22(b)

On the merits, the Court ruled that the Supreme Court's 2012 decision—declaring the sale null and void—necessarily affirmed the validity of the underlying forfeiture against the Vendors

Under the principles of judicial discipline and res judicata, the Petitioners were barred from re-opening a settled issue or raising new pleas like Section 9 (fine in lieu of forfeiture), which "ought to have been raised" in earlier rounds of litigation

The Court held that the forfeiture proceedings had attained finality following the Supreme Court's judgment, and the Petitioners failed to prove any jurisdictional error or perversity. The prayer to quash the 2015 Tribunal order was rejected.