2024 (1) TMI 94 - AT - Companies Law

Maintainability of appeal - Condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient reasons for filing appeal not given - making incorrect statement in the condonation of delay application. HELD THAT - The appeal was not ripe for hearing in view of the fact that the main appeal was filed after the expiry of 45 days of limitation and in the appeal an Interlocutory Application was filed for condonation of delay In para 3 the appellant has stated that the certified copy of the impugned order was applied for on 31.10.2022 and thereafter the certified copy of the impugned order was made available on 2.11.2022. The reasons for delay in filing the appeal has been explained as if the appellant was travelling and was out of station from 24th October, 2022 to 18.11.2022, whereas the impugned order reflects that the certified copy was applied for on 02.11.2022 and it was made available to the appellant on 03.11.2022. Meaning thereby that the facts disclosed in condonation of delay application is erroneous and contrary to the record. Moreover the reason assigned that the appellant was travelling and was out of station is also not a sufficient reason to persuades to act upon such reason in condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Normally if delay is occurred in filing an appeal it is expected that the appellant may explain the delay on day to day basis. However, in the present case neither specific reason has been assigned nor correct statement has been made. In such situation as well as in the absence of showing any plausible reason which prevented the appellant to file appeal within time, there are no option but to reject the application for condonation of delay. The condonation of delay application stands dismissed not only on the ground of delay in filing the appeal but also for making incorrect statement in the condonation of delay application. Application for condonation of delay as well as appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the issue of condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the rejection of an appeal against an order passed by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, Court I concerning a fraud case involving a significant amount of money.

Condonation of Delay:
The appellant filed an appeal against an order dated 21.10.2022 after the expiry of the 45-day limitation period, necessitating the filing of an Interlocutory Application (IA No.596/2023) for condonation of delay. The delay was explained as being due to the appellant's travel schedule, but the facts presented in the application were found to be erroneous and contrary to the record. The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay, citing the lack of a sufficient reason to justify the delay and the incorrect statements made in the application. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed without delving into the merits of the case.

Rejection of Appeal:
The appeal was filed against an order by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, rejecting MA No.1705/2019 filed in CP No.277/MB/2018 related to a fraud case involving more than Rs.11000 crores. The appellant, whose husband was implicated in the fraud, claimed ownership of securities in a joint demat account, which was contested by the Union of India. Despite the appellant's arguments, the NCLT rejected the prayer, leading to the filing of the present appeal. However, due to the dismissal of the condonation of delay application, the appeal was summarily dismissed without addressing the merits of the case.

Conclusion:
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the rejection of the condonation of delay application, which was based on erroneous information and insufficient justification for the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and accurate representations in such applications. As a result, the appeal against the NCLT order was dismissed without a detailed examination of the case's merits.