2009 (7) TMI 785 - HC - Companies Law

Condonation of delay of 64 days in filing the civil miscellaneous appeal - Held that - In view of the language used in section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, this court holds that an appeal against order of the CLB has to be filed within a period of 60 days from the date of the communication of the decision or an order and beyond that period the appeal could be filed with a petition to condone the delay within another 60 days and not beyond that period. In view of the proviso under section 10F of the Act, it is not possible for the High Court to condone the delay of more than 60 days in preferring the appeal. In this case, there is a delay of 64 days in the result, the maintainability petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing a civil miscellaneous appeal challenging the order passed by the Company Law Board ('CLB'), Chennai.

Analysis:
The petition sought condonation of a 64-day delay in filing a civil miscellaneous appeal against the CLB's order. The delay was attributed to various procedural steps taken by the petitioner, including seeking legal opinion and the intervening summer vacation. The petitioner produced original documents as per CLB's orders, leading to the delay. The petitioner's counsel argued that the appeal should be heard to prevent prejudice, as a related appeal by the respondent was pending. However, the respondent's counsel contended that the petition for condonation was not maintainable under section 10F of the Companies Act, which provides a 60-day limitation for filing an appeal against CLB's order.

The court examined section 10F of the Companies Act, which allows a 60-day period for filing an appeal against CLB's decision, with a provision to extend it by another 60 days if sufficient cause is shown. Referring to precedents, the court emphasized that the Companies Act's provisions limit the extension period to 60 days beyond the initial 60-day limitation. The court cited the Supreme Court's interpretation of a similar provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, highlighting the exclusion of the application of section 5 of the Limitation Act beyond the specified extension period.

The court further analyzed a previous case's decision, emphasizing that while section 5 of the Limitation Act allows for condonation of delay without limit upon establishing sufficient cause, the Companies Act's specific provisions restrict the extension period to 60 days beyond the initial 60-day limitation. The court concluded that the appeal against CLB's order must be filed within the prescribed period, and the delay of 64 days in this case could not be condoned beyond the statutory limit. The petitioner's counsel, acknowledging the court's position, expressed a willingness to explore alternative legal remedies. Consequently, the court dismissed the maintainability petition and closed the civil miscellaneous appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment illustrates the court's interpretation of the statutory provisions governing the timeline for filing appeals against CLB's orders and the limitations on condoning delays beyond the specified periods.