2012 (12) TMI 392 - HC - Companies Law

Rectification of Share Register - dismissing application of appellant u/s 111A - condonation of 250 days delay - maintainability of Appeal - held that - Special Leave Petition preferred by the appellant was argued at length and was withdrawn only when the appellant failed to make out a challenge on merits to the order dated 2nd February, 2012 of the learned Company Judge - appeal is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:

1. Appeal against the order of the Company Law Board for rectification of the Share Register.
2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. Maintainability of the appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act.
4. Applicability of intra court appeal rules from other High Courts.
5. Interpretation of the law regarding further appeals under Section 10F of the Companies Act.
6. Precedent of Letters Patent Appeal in special enactments.
7. Contention regarding withdrawal of Special Leave Petition and its impact on filing an appeal.

The judgment pertains to an appeal filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act against the Company Law Board's order dismissing an application for rectification of the Share Register. The appellant sought condonation of a 250-day delay due to prior legal proceedings. Initially, doubts were raised regarding the appeal's maintainability, leading to an adjournment for further review. The court highlighted that Section 483, under which the appeal was filed, only applies to winding up matters, rendering it inapplicable in this case.

The appellant's counsel referenced judgments from other High Courts to support the appeal's maintainability. However, the court clarified that such references were not applicable to the present situation. Moreover, a Supreme Court case was cited to emphasize that no further appeal provision exists under the Companies Act beyond Section 10F. Additionally, a Full Bench judgment of the High Court established that Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable post the insertion of Section 100A in the Civil Procedure Code.

Regarding the withdrawal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the initial order, the court noted conflicting contentions between the parties. While the respondent argued that the withdrawal indicated a lack of merit in challenging the order, the appellant relied on precedents to support the appeal's validity despite the SLP withdrawal. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, based on the legal provisions and precedents discussed during the proceedings.