Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + AT Companies Law - 2024 (2) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (2) TMI 571 - AT - Companies Law


Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal
2. Appellants' Pleas
3. Respondent's Contentions
4. Legal Precedents and Tribunal's Analysis

Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal:
The Petitioners/Appellants filed IA No.2612/2023 seeking condonation of an 18-day delay in filing Comp App (AT) No.104/2023 under Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The limitation period expired on 06.05.2023, but the appeal was filed within the further 45 days allowed by the proviso to Section 421(3).

Appellants' Pleas:
The Appellants argued that the delay was due to the 2nd Appellant being unwell and unable to instruct counsel. They cited the Supreme Court's decisions emphasizing a justice-oriented approach in condoning delays. The Appellants also rectified defects in their initial filing within the prescribed time and re-filed the appeal on 31.05.2023. They contended that the delay was not intentional and that refusing to condone it would cause irreparable harm.

Respondent's Contentions:
The 1st Respondent opposed the condonation, arguing that the Appellants showed disregard for the law by altering their stand between the pre-defect and post-defect applications. They claimed the Appellants failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for the delay and accused them of raising false averments. The Respondent also cited several legal precedents emphasizing that delays should only be condoned for unavoidable reasons and with due diligence.

Legal Precedents and Tribunal's Analysis:
The Tribunal considered various legal precedents which stressed that delays should only be condoned when justified by sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that the Appellants consistently mentioned the 2nd Appellant's illness as the reason for the delay and provided a medical certificate supporting this claim. It observed that the delay was satisfactorily explained and was not due to negligence or inaction.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal condoned the 18-day delay, subject to the Appellants paying a cost of Rs. 8000 to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within two weeks. The Appellants were directed to produce the receipt of payment to the Registry. IA No.2612/2023 in Comp App (AT) No.104/2023 was allowed with no further costs.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates