2019 (2) TMI 1182 - AT - Companies Law

Time limitation for filing appeal - Oppression and mismanagement - the appellant has claimed that he had been proceeded against ex parte and he came to know of the impugned order on 2.7.2018 - Held that - Under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, ( Act in brief), the appeal has to be filed within 45 days from the date on which the copy of the order of the Tribunal is made available to the person aggrieved. The Proviso to sub-section (3) states that the Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty five days from the date aforesaid, but within a further period not exceeding 45 days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within that period. Proviso of Section 421 of the Act are quite clear. After the first 45 days which is period given to file the appeal, the next 45 days would require sufficient cause to be shown. This Appellate tribunal has no power to condone beyond this second slab of time. In the present matter the appeal has been presented much beyond the period of 90 days and I am not required to go into the question whether there was sufficient cause for delay. The appeal is clearly time barred and is required to be dismissed on this ground itself. Also, no prima facie case is made out by the appellant that he has good case and grounds for setting aside ex parte orders. The appeal is dismissed on the ground of same being time barred.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal filed by original Respondent No.4 of TCP No.29/2016 before National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench, complaining of oppression and mismanagement by present respondents.
- Appellant claimed unawareness of impugned order until 02.07.2018 despite certified copy dated 14.03.2018.
- Appeal filed beyond statutory period of 45 days under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013.
- Appellant seeking to set aside ex parte order and present case before NCLT.
- Serious allegations in Company Petition against appellant regarding shareholding and directorship.
- NCLT findings established mismanagement by Respondent Nos. 4 to 29.
- Appellant failed to contest petition for almost a decade, now seeking to prolong litigation without valid grounds.
- Lack of legally recognizable documents supporting appellant's directorship or shares.
- Appellant's failure to obtain necessary documents from ROC to substantiate his position.
- Appeal dismissed as time-barred, with costs imposed on the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the original Respondent No.4 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench, alleging oppression and mismanagement by the present respondents. The appellant claimed ignorance of the impugned order until 02.07.2018, despite a certified copy dated 14.03.2018, leading to a challenge based on the statutory time limit of 45 days under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013.

2. The appellant sought to set aside the ex parte order and present his case before the NCLT, arguing that serious allegations in the Company Petition required a fair hearing. However, the appellant failed to provide substantial grounds or valid reasons for the delay in contesting the petition, raising doubts about the legitimacy of his claims and intentions to prolong the litigation.

3. The NCLT findings revealed mismanagement by Respondent Nos. 4 to 29, establishing a lack of contribution to the company's capital and fraudulent practices related to shareholding and directorship. Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the appellant's prolonged silence and lack of concrete evidence undermined his credibility and legal standing in the case.

4. The appellant's failure to contest the petition for almost a decade, coupled with the absence of legally recognizable documents supporting his directorship or shares, weakened his position and credibility before the tribunal. The appellant's excuses regarding document retrieval and legal representation appeared weak and unsubstantiated, further diminishing his case's strength.

5. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred, with costs imposed on the appellant to pay &8377; 50,000 to each of the specified respondents. The judgment highlighted the lack of merit in the appellant's arguments and the importance of timely and substantiated legal actions in such matters to ensure fairness and justice in corporate disputes.