2015 (4) TMI 344 - Board - Companies Law

Period of limitation - Option given by Company law board not exercised in given time - Held that - In view of the fact that Shri Rohan Thawani, ld. Counsel of the petitioner was present before the Company Law board on the date of the order dated 3.9.2007 passed in CA 152/2007, and before the High Court of Delhi on 26.7.2012 i.e. the date of the order dismissing the appeal, the knowledge thereof on such dates to the petitioner can safely be attributed. Similarly, since the order dated 26.7.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi was an oral order dictated in open Court, the knowledge of such order must be attributed to the petitioner on the same day in view of the fact that Shri Rohan Thawani, Counsel for the petitioner, was present before the High Court on the date of such order and represented the petitioner from the very beginning till date. Since no appeal was preferred by the Petitioner against the order dated 26.7.2012, the date when he received a certified copy of the said order looses significance. Therefore, in any case, the exercise of option on 16.8.2012 by the petitioner, Dr, Raj Kachroo, was beyond the period of 15 days contemplated by the order dated 3.9.2007.and in the worst case scenario from 26.7.2012 i.e. the date of the final order passed by the High Court of Delhi in Appeal, is not entitled to any relief. - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Disobedience of court order to hand over company's assets
- Failure to exercise option within specified time frame
- Knowledge of court orders and timely action by the petitioner

Disobedience of Court Order to Hand Over Company's Assets:
The case involved an execution application filed by the petitioner seeking action against the respondents for not handing over the company's machines and documents as per a previous court order. The petitioner had opted to take over the management of the company but faced non-cooperation from the respondents. The court directed the petitioners to reimburse the respondents for amounts brought in for discharging the company's liabilities if they wished to take over the assets and liabilities. However, the petitioners failed to exercise this option within the specified time frame, leading to further legal proceedings.

Failure to Exercise Option Within Specified Time Frame:
The court noted that the petitioners did not act within the 15-day period to exercise their option as directed by the court order. Despite having knowledge of the orders passed by the Company Law Board and the High Court, the petitioners failed to take timely action. The court emphasized that the petitioner's delay in complying with the directions within the specified time frame made them ineligible for enforcement of the previous court order.

Knowledge of Court Orders and Timely Action by the Petitioner:
The court considered the petitioner's argument regarding the timeline of receiving certified copies of court orders. However, it was established that the petitioner's counsel was present during crucial court proceedings and was aware of the orders passed. The court concluded that the petitioner's failure to exercise the option within the prescribed period, even in the worst-case scenario, rendered them ineligible for any relief. Consequently, the Execution Application No. 47/2013 was dismissed based on the petitioner's failure to act within the specified time frame despite having knowledge of the court orders.