9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (2) TMI 626 - HC - Companies LawCompany Law Board orders challenged - question of limitation invoked - Held that - The maximum period available to the appellant for preferring the appeal was sixty sixty days, i.e., 120 days up to 24-3-2007, subject to the condition that the appellant has shown sufficient cause for condonation up to sixty days beyond the prescribed period of sixty days. As noticed the initial period of 60 days in filing the appeal under section 10F expired on 23-1-2007 and the extended period under the proviso to section 10F expired on 24-3-2007. Hence, even if the contention of the appellant is accepted that he calculated initial period of filing the appeal as 90 days and the part of the period spent in the Delhi High Court is also considered to be the sufficient cause, it cannot be extended beyond 120 days, i.e., 24-3-2007. The present appeal having been filed on 16-5-2007, is barred by time. The Company Law Board has simply refused to grant ad interim order restraining the directors of the respondent-company from acting as directors during the pendency of the company petition before the Company Law Board. Existence of question of law is sine qua non for filing an appeal under section 10F. Thus do not feel that any such question of law has arisen in refusing the ad interim injunction. The appeal is otherwise also bereft of any merit. Thus the application under section 14 of the Limitation Act and consequently the appeal are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order dated 24-11-2006 by the Company Law Board. 2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 3. Exclusion of time under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 4. Jurisdiction to condone delay beyond sixty days under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Order Dated 24-11-2006 by the Company Law Board: The appellant questioned the validity of the order dated 24-11-2006, passed by the Principal Bench of the Company Law Board, New Delhi. The order declined the interim direction sought by the appellant under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The appeal against this order was initially filed in the Delhi High Court, which raised jurisdictional objections, leading to the withdrawal of the appeal and its subsequent filing in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 2. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963: The appellant filed an application (C.M. No. 109 of 2007) seeking condonation of a 140-day delay in filing the appeal. However, another application (C.M.A. No. 114 of 2007) was later filed under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking exclusion of the time spent pursuing the appeal in the Delhi High Court. The respondents opposed both applications, arguing that section 14 of the Limitation Act does not apply to appeals and that the court lacks jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the sixty days stipulated by section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956. 3. Exclusion of Time Under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963: The appellant sought exclusion of the period from 17-2-2007 to 16-4-2007, during which the appeal was pursued in the Delhi High Court. The respondents contended that section 14 of the Limitation Act applies only to suits and applications, not appeals. The court examined various judgments to determine if section 14 could be applied to appeals. The court concluded that even if section 14 is not directly applicable, the principles underlying it could constitute "sufficient cause" under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delays in appeals. 4. Jurisdiction to Condone Delay Beyond Sixty Days Under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956: The court analyzed whether it could condone delays beyond the additional sixty days allowed under section 10F. The proviso to section 10F explicitly limits the extension to a "further period not exceeding sixty days." The court cited judgments indicating that such statutory language imposes an absolute bar on extensions beyond this period. The court held that section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply where the special law (Companies Act) prescribes a specific limitation period and extension mechanism. Consequently, the court found it lacked jurisdiction to extend the limitation period beyond the prescribed 120 days (60 days plus an additional 60 days). Conclusion: The court dismissed the application under section 14 of the Limitation Act and consequently the appeal, as it was barred by time. The court also noted that the appeal lacked merit because no substantial question of law arose from the Company Law Board's refusal to grant an interim injunction. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
