9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 1268 - AT - Companies LawCondonation of delay of 338 days in filing appeal - defects pointed out by the Registry, are not removed within the 7 days period as prescribed under the Rule, 26 of the National Company Law Appellate Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the Impugned Order was passed by the Tribunal on 27.05.2019 certified copy of the Order was delivered on 10.07.2019. As per Section 421 of the Act. The Appellant was required to file the Appeal within 45 days i.e. till 24.08.2019. However, the Appellant has filed the Appeal on 28.08.2019 i.e. beyond the period of Limitation. The Office after scrutiny of the Memo of Appeal intimated the defect to the Appellant on 01.10.2019 and on the same day the Memo of Appeal was returned to the Appellant. The Appellant was supposed to cure the defects within 7 days and has to file the Appeal on or before the 08.10.2019. However, the Appellant has refiled the Appeal on 28.07.2020 i.e. a delay of 338 days. It is pertinent to note that if the defects pointed out by the Registry, are not removed within the 7 days period as prescribed under the Rule, 26 of the National Company Law Appellate Rules, 2016. The Appeal is treated to be a fresh Appeal and in such a situation, this Appellate Tribunal cannot condone the delay beyond 45 days. This Tribunal cannot condone the delay beyond 45 days. Thus, the Application for condonation of delay of 338 days is dismissed.
Issues:
- Delay in refiling the Appeal under Rule 11 and 31 of the National Company Law Appellate Rules, 2016. - Applicability of Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 in condoning the delay. - Interpretation of relevant case laws regarding condonation of delay. - Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to condone delay beyond the specified period. Analysis: 1. The judgment dealt with the delay in refiling an Appeal under Rule 11 and 31 of the National Company Law Appellate Rules, 2016. The Appellant sought condonation of a 338-day delay in refiling the Appeal filed against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal. The delay was due to the need to obtain and translate certain documents, compounded by the Covid-19 lockdown. 2. The Appellant argued that once an Appeal is numbered, any delay in refiling is deemed condoned. They cited the case of P. Ram Bhoopal Vs. Pragnya River Bridge Developers Ltd. to support their position. Additionally, the Appellant highlighted the provisions of Section 252(1) and 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, indicating a lengthy period for stakeholders to appeal against the striking of a company's name, suggesting that the delay should be condoned based on the Act's intent. 3. The Respondent opposed the condonation of the delay, citing Section 421(3) of the Act, which limits the Tribunal's authority to condone delays to 45 days. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, examined the timeline of events, noting that the Appellant had missed multiple deadlines for refiling the Appeal, ultimately resulting in a delay of 338 days. 4. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments, including P. Ram Bhoopal and Mr. Jitendra Virmani cases, to establish the limitations on condoning delays beyond the specified period. It was emphasized that if defects are not rectified within the prescribed time frame, the Appeal is treated as a fresh filing, restricting the Tribunal's ability to condone delays beyond 45 days. 5. Considering the arguments and legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that it lacked the jurisdiction to condone the delay of 338 days as requested by the Appellant. The Application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the Company Appeal (AT) No. 122 of 2020 due to being time-barred. No costs were awarded in the judgment.
|
