2023 (10) TMI 73 - AT - Companies Law

Condonation of delay of 44 days in refiling appeal - intentional delay or not - HELD THAT - Since a plea has been taken that the appellant was not arrayed party before the NCLT and adverse order has been passed against the appellant, it is opined that instead of filing appeal the appellant was required to file an appropriate application before the NCLT for recall of the order and also for impleading him as Respondent in the main petition. It was submitted by Mr. Mukherjee, Ld. Sr. Counsel for appellant that subsequently an intervention application was also filed. Be that as it may, considering the fact that a plea has been taken that without impleading Appellant order has been passed, it is desirable to dispose of this appeal granting liberty to the appellant to file appropriate application before the NCLT. If such application is filed it is expected that Ld. NCLT without any further delay preferably within ten days from the date of filing of such application by the Appellant may pass appropriate order in accordance with law, after hearing all the parties - It goes without saying that Ld. NCLT may not be influenced by any of the observation recorded by this Tribunal, since no opinion recorded on the merit of the case. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The appeal involved a delay in re-filing, examination of an impugned order, resolution of a dispute regarding transferred shares, and the appellant's grievance against an adverse order passed without being impleaded as a party in the main petition.

Delay in Re-filing:
The appeal was filed within time, but a delay of 44 days in re-filing occurred. An interlocutory application was filed to condone the delay, citing reasons beyond the appellant's control. The delay was condoned after considering the submissions of the appellant's counsel and the facts stated in the application.

Examination of Impugned Order:
The Tribunal decided not to delve into the merits of the case after examining the impugned order. Without issuing notice to other respondents, the appeal was disposed of.

Resolution of Dispute Regarding Transferred Shares:
The appeal was filed against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal regarding the transfer of shares. The order highlighted the transfer of shares in violation of a previous order and directed that no further steps be taken regarding the transferred shares. The appellant, represented by counsel, was aggrieved by this direction and argued that the status quo order was only applicable to the company's properties in Chennai, not the shares.

Grievance Against Adverse Order:
The appellant contended that they were not made a party before the NCLT and an adverse order was passed against them. The Tribunal suggested that the appellant should have filed an application before the NCLT for recall of the order and to be impleaded as a respondent in the main petition. The appeal was disposed of, granting liberty to the appellant to file the appropriate application before the NCLT, expecting a prompt decision from the NCLT after hearing all parties.

Final Disposition:
The Tribunal made it clear that its observations should not influence the NCLT's decision and granted liberty for the appellant to file the necessary application. The appeal was disposed of with these observations, leaving the NCLT free to examine other interlocutory applications as well.