2018 (4) TMI 1590 - AT - Companies Law

Condonation of delay - Held that - Having heard Mr. Sanjay Shorey, Joint Director (Legal), Ministry of Corporate Affairs on behalf of the Appellant Union of India and we issue notice on respondents both in the matter of condonation of delay and appeal. Mr. Arpan Behl, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Respondent Nos.35 and 38. Mr. Arunubh Chowdhary, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No 43. Mr. Dheeraj Nair, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 44, 51 and 53. Mr. Aaditya Pandey, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 46. Mr. Ashish Prasad Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 52. No further notice needs to be issued on them. They may file their reply within 10 days. Let notice be issued on rest of the respondents by speed post.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing original certified copy of the impugned order, issuance of notice to respondents for condonation of delay and appeal, acceptance of notice by various advocates on behalf of respondents, further notice issuance to remaining respondents, and setting the next hearing date.

Analysis:
The judgment by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, involved several key issues. Firstly, it was noted that the original certified free copy of the impugned order, which was initially provided by the Adjudicating Authority to the Appellant, had not been filed. Instead, a later certified copy was submitted along with an application for condonation of a 6-day delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal directed the Appellant to file the original certified copy of the order by the next date, emphasizing the importance of the correct documentation in legal proceedings.

Secondly, after hearing Mr. Sanjay Shorey, representing the Appellant - Union of India, the Tribunal issued notice to the respondents regarding both the condonation of delay and the appeal. Various advocates representing different respondents accepted the notice on their behalf, ensuring proper communication and participation in the legal process. Respondent Nos. 35, 38, 43, 44, 51, 53, 46, and 52 were specifically mentioned as having accepted the notice and were directed to file their replies within 10 days.

Furthermore, the Tribunal decided to issue notice to the remaining respondents by speed post, with a deadline for filing requisites and process fee. Additionally, if the Appellant provided email addresses for the remaining respondents, notice would also be sent through email, showcasing the Tribunal's commitment to ensuring all parties were informed and involved in the proceedings. The Tribunal permitted Dasti service and scheduled the next hearing for 3rd May 2018, demonstrating a structured and organized approach to the legal process.