2025 (3) TMI 1257 - SCH - Companies Law

Seeking restoration of the name of the appellant in the Register of the Companies - Section 252(3) of the Companies Act 2013 - HELD THAT - The appellant is right in the sense that in view of the findings recorded by the NCLT on the review petition the time consumed in prosecuting the review petition ought to have been excluded. However there is a delay on the part of the appellant at every stage. The application for restoration of the appellant s name in the Register of the Companies was filed after a lapse of four months from the date on which it was struck out. The review petition was filed five months after the NCLT dismissed the application. After the review petition was dismissed it took more than one year for the appellant to prefer an appeal before the NCLAT. There is no justification for this delay of five months and one year respectively. Looking to the nature of the proceedings the NCLAT was justified in holding that no case was made out to condone the delay especially when under Section 421 of the Companies Act the delay could have been condoned provided it was upto forty-five days. Conclusion - The application for restoration was delayed by four months the review petition by five months and the appeal by over a year with no adequate justification provided. Given these delays the NCLAT was deemed justified in denying condonation as Section 421 of the Companies Act limits condonation to delays of up to forty-five days. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

The Supreme Court, with Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan presiding, reviewed an appeal concerning the restoration of a company's name under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The appellant's name was struck from the Register of Companies on August 18, 2018, and an application for restoration was dismissed by the NCLT on January 31, 2019. A subsequent review petition was also dismissed on March 30, 2021. The appellant filed an appeal with the NCLAT on April 21, 2022, along with a request for condonation of delay.The appellant argued that the NCLAT erroneously held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for the exclusion of time spent in prosecuting a case without jurisdiction, did not apply. The NCLT had found the review petition non-maintainable, suggesting Section 14 should apply as per Section 433 of the Companies Act.The Supreme Court acknowledged the appellant's point regarding the applicability of Section 14 but noted consistent delays by the appellant at every procedural stage. The application for restoration was delayed by four months, the review petition by five months, and the appeal by over a year, with no adequate justification provided. Given these delays, the NCLAT was deemed justified in denying condonation, as Section 421 of the Companies Act limits condonation to delays of up to forty-five days. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.