2008 (7) TMI 589 - HC - Companies Law

Period of limitation - order of AAIFR dated 21 February, 2007, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the ground of limitation challenged - Held that - the petitioner s case set up in the writ petition cannot be sustained as the petitioner has only stated that the order dated 4 March, 2004, was not received by it in normal course by the petitioner. In our view the petitioner had applied for certified copy of the order beyond the period of 60 days, and cannot be now heard to say that its appeal should be treated in time. Even if we treat the appeal to be filed in time, we have already noted the finding of the BIFR that the appellant is not serious about the revival of the company and that the company has enjoyed the interim order of the Madras High Court which stipulated the deposit of ₹ 1 crore, and that non-compliance of the said condition of deposit led to the vacation of the interim order. The findings of facts by the BIFR that the petitioner never submitted a rehabilitation scheme, has rightly been recorded by it and even if the appeal was to be treated as having been filed in time, there is no ground to interfere with the aforesaid order of the BIFR on merits.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of AAIFR dated 21 February, 2007, dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation.
2. Compliance with the direction of the Madras High Court regarding deposit of Rs. 1 crore.
3. Interpretation of regulations for service of notices or documents.
4. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority to entertain an appeal beyond the prescribed period.
5. Application of legal precedents in the context of the present case.
6. Consideration of facts and findings by BIFR regarding the company's failure to submit a rehabilitation scheme.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenged the order of AAIFR dismissing the appeal due to limitation, which was based on the appellant's delayed application for a certified copy of the impugned order. The BIFR had earlier confirmed its decision to wind up the company under section 20(1) of the SICA due to the company's failure to comply with the Madras High Court's directions regarding a deposit and the absence of a rehabilitation scheme submission.
2. The company's defense was centered on ongoing negotiations with banks for a settlement, but the ICICI disputed this claim. The BIFR, after considering the submissions, concluded that the company failed to formulate a viable revival scheme within a reasonable time, leading to the decision to wind up the company and restrict asset disposal without prior approval.
3. The regulations for service of notices or documents were cited, emphasizing the importance of timely communication and compliance. The failure to adhere to these regulations could impact legal proceedings and the validity of appeals.
4. The judgment highlighted the jurisdictional limitations of the Appellate Authority, stating that appeals beyond the prescribed period of 60 days cannot be entertained. The dismissal of the appeal was based on this statutory restriction.
5. Legal precedents, including judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts, were referenced to support the decision to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of limitation. The application of these precedents clarified the legal principles governing the present case.
6. The findings by the BIFR regarding the company's lack of seriousness in revival efforts, non-compliance with court orders, and failure to submit a rehabilitation scheme were crucial in upholding the decision to dismiss the appeal. The court emphasized that even if the appeal had been filed within the time limit, the company's actions did not warrant interference with the BIFR's order on its merits.