2015 (6) TMI 498 - HC - Companies Law

Condonation of delay - Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Whether under Section 25 of SICA, the delay in filing the appeal to AAIFR can be condoned beyond the period of 60 days - Whether high court has power under Article 226 to condone the delay and remit the matter - Held that - The combined reading of various provisions contained clearly points out that the legislature intended it to be a complete code by itself which alone should govern the several matters provided by it. Being a complete code by itself, the nature of remedy provided therein would be governed by the said Act. If, on an examination of the relevant sections, it is clear that the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 are necessarily excluded, then the benefits conferred therein cannot be called in aid to supplement the provisions of the Act. Wherever the special law does not exclude the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act,1963 by an express reference, it would nonetheless be open to the court to examine whether and to what extent, the nature of those provisions or the nature of the subject-matter and scheme of the special law exclude their operation. The power conferred under Articles 226/227 is designated to effectuate the law, to ensure that rule of law is enforced and the statutory authorities and other organs of the State act in accordance with law. It is not to be invoked whereby authorities are directed to act contrary to law. Wherever, the extent of condonable period is specifically prescribed by a statute, it would not be appropriate even under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution to entertain the writ petition so as to breach the express provision in the statute and act contrary to the mandate of the legislature. It is for the legislature to prescribe the limits or not to do so for condoning the delay. Exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India would amount to doing violence to the statutory provision and rendering the same otiose. Same views expressed in M/s Nitco Tiles Limited vs. Gujarat Ceramic Floor Tiles Mfg. Assn. And others 2005 (2) TMI 159 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , Union of India and another vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited 1996 (5) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , M/s Raj Chemicals vs. Union of India 2012 (3) TMI 307 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , Sheetal Enterprises vs. Union of India 2005 (10) TMI 107 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY . Having expounded the legal position, it may be noticed that there was delay of 354 days in filing the appeal by the appellant State before the Appellate authority. The appellate authority as well as the learned Single Judge had dismissed the appeal as time barred. The delay being beyond the condonable period prescribed in Section 25(1) of SICA, there is no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal. - Decided against the appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether under Section 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA), the delay in filing the appeal to the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) can be condoned beyond the period of 60 days.
2. If the answer to the above is negative, whether the High Court is empowered under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India to condone the delay and remit the matter for decision on merits by the AAIFR.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay Beyond 60 Days under Section 25 of SICA
1. Relevant Provisions:
- Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963: Allows the court to admit an appeal after the prescribed period if sufficient cause is shown.
- Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963: States that the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act apply unless expressly excluded by a special or local law.
- Section 25(1) of SICA: Specifies that an appeal to the AAIFR must be filed within 45 days from the date of the order, extendable by 15 days on showing sufficient cause, but not beyond that.

2. Judicial Interpretation:
- Supreme Court Precedents:
- In Union of India v. Popular Construction Company and Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, the Supreme Court held that the specific limitation periods in special statutes exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
- Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise: The court held that the appellate authority has no power to condone the delay beyond the statutory period.
- Delhi High Court in M/s Agarpara Jute Mills Limited v. BIFR: Affirmed that the language of Section 25 of SICA clearly excludes the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delays beyond 60 days.

3. Conclusion:
- The Full Bench concluded that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to condone delays beyond the 60-day period specified in Section 25(1) of SICA. The appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to condone such delays, and the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are excluded from its applicability.

Issue 2: High Court's Power under Articles 226/227 to Condon Delay
1. Judicial Review:
- The power under Articles 226/227 is meant to enforce the rule of law and ensure that statutory authorities act within the law. It is not intended to direct authorities to act contrary to statutory provisions.
- Supreme Court in M/s Nitco Tiles Limited v. Gujarat Ceramic Floor Tiles Mfg. Assn.: Held that the High Court cannot direct authorities to act contrary to the statutory provisions under its writ jurisdiction.

2. High Court Precedents:
- Kerala High Court in Thomas v. Kottayam Municipality: Held that the High Court cannot condone delays beyond the statutory period under Article 226.
- Bombay High Court in M/s Raj Chemicals v. Union of India: Emphasized that the High Court cannot permit or direct an infraction of statutory limitations.

3. Conclusion:
- The Full Bench concluded that the High Court, under Articles 226/227, cannot condone delays beyond the maximum period prescribed by law and direct the appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits. This would be contrary to the legislative intent and statutory mandate.

Final Judgment:
- The appeal by the appellant State was dismissed due to a delay of 354 days, which is beyond the condonable period prescribed in Section 25(1) of SICA. The appellate authority and the learned Single Judge correctly dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The Letters Patent Appeal was consequently dismissed.