2020 (11) TMI 251 - AT - Companies Law

Condonation of delay of 201 days filed by the Appellant/Petitioner/Transferor Company - Appellant contends that the Scheme of Amalgamation is in the final stage of consideration and if such delay was not condoned, it would cause a significant adverse impact on the business operations of the Transferor as well as the Transferee Company - HELD THAT - The Tribunal is to adopt/take lenient/liberal view of course, based on the facts and circumstances of given case. Further, the very approach of the Tribunal ought to be pragmatic and justice oriented in the considered opinion of this Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal is to assess the due diligence of parties craving for condonation. In fact, failure to adopt/resort to vigilance or extra vigilance by the concerned party ought not to be a ground for ousting it from Litigation. It is well settled principle in Law that if the explanation offered does not smack of mala fide, utmost consideration must be given to a Litigant/Suitor to condone the delay. This Tribunal, to prevent an Aberration of Justice and to Secure the Ends of Justice interferes with the impugned order passed by the NCLT, Division Bench -I, Chennai and allows the instant Appeal by condoning the delay in question. The present Appeal is allowed, but without Costs.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing a Company Petition under Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant, an unlisted Public Limited Company, filed a Company Appeal as an 'Aggrieved Person' against the National Company Law Tribunal's order dismissing the petition for condonation of delay of 201 days in filing a Company Petition.
2. The Tribunal observed that while the meetings of equity shareholders and unsecured creditors were duly held as directed, the Company Petition was filed late, and the reasons provided did not sufficiently explain the delay.
3. The Appellant argued that all necessary steps were taken in compliance with the Tribunal's directions, and the Scheme of Amalgamation was approved by shareholders and creditors, highlighting potential adverse impacts on business operations if the delay was not condoned.
4. The Appellant emphasized that the Scheme was in the best interest of stakeholders and should not be jeopardized due to the delay in filing the petition.
5. The Appellant contended that there was no gross negligence on their part, citing previous instances where delays were condoned by other courts to support their plea for condonation in this case.
6. The Tribunal stressed the importance of adopting a lenient view on condonation of delay, especially when the explanation does not suggest any mala fide intent, and ultimately allowed the Appeal, setting aside the impugned order and directing the Appellant to file a certified copy of the order within three weeks.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment concerning the condonation of delay in filing a Company Petition, providing a comprehensive overview of the arguments presented and the Tribunal's decision in the matter.