2014 (8) TMI 1256 - HC - Companies Law

Seeking extension of period of complying with the requirements of the Companies Act 2013 and Clause 41 of the Listing Agreement for publication of the audited financial results for the year ended 31st March 2014 and for the quarter ended 30th June 2014 at least by a further period of 30 days - HELD THAT - By an order dated 05.08.2014 this Court had set aside the orders dated 16.06.2014 passed by the National Stock Exchange Limited and the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited and remanded the matter for being considered afresh subject to the petitioner complying with clause 41 of the Listing Agreement within three weeks from that date. The petitioners now state that they are unable to comply with clause 41 of the Listing Agreement as they still did not have a quorum for holding a Board Meeting as the application for security clearance of the third Director was furnished on 25.08.2014. Conclusion - The time period for complying with Section 41 of the Listing Agreement is extended by a further period of four weeks. However it is clarified that the same does not in any manner indicate that the delay caused by the petitioner is condonable and the respondents shall be at liberty to take an independent view on the question of default committed by the petitioner. Application disposed off.

Summary

In the case before the Delhi High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Justice Vibhu Bakhru, the petitioner sought an extension to comply with the Companies Act, 2013, and Clause 41 of the Listing Agreement, concerning the publication of audited financial results for the year ending March 31, 2014, and the quarter ending June 30, 2014. Previously, on August 5, 2014, the court had set aside orders from the National Stock Exchange Limited and the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited, remanding the matter for reconsideration, contingent upon the petitioner meeting the requirements of Clause 41 within three weeks. The petitioner claimed they could not comply due to the lack of a quorum for a Board Meeting, as the security clearance for a third Director was pending since August 25, 2014. The court granted an additional four-week extension but clarified that this did not imply the delay was condonable, allowing respondents to independently assess the petitioner's default. The application was disposed of with these directions.