2022 (1) TMI 979 - Tri - Companies Law

Condonation of delay of 3696 days in filing petition - Continued negotiations, did not settle - process of settlement was turned down with no positive response, for which the petition got more delayed - sufficient cause or not - HELD THAT - The causes for delay in filing the Application as mentioned by the Applicant, such as continuation of negotiations/further negotiations with the Respondents for seven years, writing letters to the Respondents, ill health, cases filed in other forums, lack of legal knowledge, are not only sufficient but also not convincing at all to condone the delay of such a long period of 3696 days i.e. around 10 years from the reported cause of action in filing the Petition before this Bench under Section 59 of the Companies Act 2013. Rather it is found inaction on the part of the Petitioner for seven years in not filing the Application before this Bench in time. The prayers made in this application to condone the delay of 3696 days and take up the Main Petition under 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 filed by the Petitioner before this Bench as a regular Petition are hereby rejected - Application dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the application.
2. Legitimacy of the share transfer.
3. Allegations of forgery and unauthorized share transfer.
4. Legal advice and its impact on the delay.
5. Family settlement attempts and their relevance to the delay.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Application:
The Petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of a delay of 3,696 days in filing the main petition under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal noted that the reasons provided by the Petitioner, such as ongoing negotiations, health issues, and lack of legal knowledge, were not sufficient or convincing to condone such an extensive delay. The Tribunal emphasized that there was inaction on the part of the Petitioner for seven years, which contributed to the delay.

2. Legitimacy of the Share Transfer:
The Petitioner claimed that her shares in Rahman Properties Ltd. were transferred without her knowledge and consent in 2012. The Respondents argued that the shares were transferred by the Petitioner’s late brother, Adilur Rahman, with due consideration paid to the Petitioner. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the share transfer issue due to the primary focus on the delay condonation.

3. Allegations of Forgery and Unauthorized Share Transfer:
The Petitioner alleged that the Respondents forged her signature to transfer her shares. The Respondents denied these allegations, stating that the transfers were legitimate and supported by documentation. The Tribunal acknowledged these allegations but did not adjudicate on them due to the procedural focus of the application.

4. Legal Advice and Its Impact on the Delay:
The Petitioner argued that inadequate legal advice from her previous counsel contributed to the delay in filing the application. The Respondents contended that this was not a sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Tribunal agreed with the Respondents, citing the judgment in Mariambai and Anr. vs. Hanifabai and Anr., which established that wrong legal advice does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

5. Family Settlement Attempts and Their Relevance to the Delay:
The Petitioner claimed that efforts to resolve the family dispute amicably consumed significant time, contributing to the delay. The Respondents denied any such negotiations and argued that the Petitioner’s claims were baseless. The Tribunal found that the Petitioner’s reliance on family settlement attempts was not a valid reason for the extensive delay.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the reasons provided by the Petitioner for the delay were not sufficient to condone the delay of 3,696 days. The prayers for condonation of delay and for accepting the main petition as a regular petition were rejected. The Tribunal clarified that the observations made were limited to the issue of delay condonation and did not affect the merits of the underlying disputes or the Petitioner’s rights in other forums. The application was dismissed without any cost.

← Previous Next →