:1: IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1053 OF 2008 WITH FERA APPEAL ST. NO.4078 OF 2008 Union of India. ..Appellant. Vs. Sheetal N. Pancha. ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1054 OF 2008 WITH FERA APPEAL ST. NO.3068 OF 2008 Union of India. ..Appellant. Vs. Mrs.Archana Anil Peter. ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1055 OF 2008 WITH FERA APPEAL ST. NO.4072 OF 2008 Union of India. ..Appellant. Vs. Shri.N.T. Bhatkar. ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1056 OF 2008 WITH FERA APPEAL ST. NO.4084 OF 2008 Union of India. ..Appellant. Vs. Shri. Suresh John Jacob. ..Respondent. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1057 OF 2008 WITH FERA APPEAL ST. NO.4080 OF 2008 Union of India. ..Appellant. Vs. Shri.S.R.Kadam. ..Respondent. Mr.R.V.Desai,Sr. Counsel with Mr.A.S.Rao and Mr. H.P.Chaturvedi for the Appellant. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2008 :2: PC : 1. In all these cases there is a delay in preferring the appeals. There are applications for condonation of delay. We have heard the counsel on the applications for condonation of delay and main matters. All the respondents in these cases were employees of the company. Show cause notice issued to them was on the ground that they had abeted commission of offence under the provisions of FERA. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence came to the conclusion that it was a case of negligence and no abetment. Based on that, the appeals preferred were allowed. Revenue has preferred these appeals against the said common order. 2. Having considered the observations of the Tribunal, we do not find any error of law in the impugned order. In the light of that, appeals along with applications disposed of. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)