9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pparent that there appears to be some error. The effect of the error will have to be examined. The cause for delay in instituting the appeal after a gap of more than eight years appears to us to be sufficient and convincing. There is no proof on record that the show cause notice or the adjudication order were duly served upon the appellant or the erstwhile company M/s. Owen Brockway (I) Ltd. The delay condonation application is supported by uncontroverted affidavit. In this view of the matter, the application deserves to be allowed. - Delay condoned. - 21/2012 - - - Dated:- 20-8-2014 - Vinay Kumar Mathur, Chairperson and Dr. H.K. Mudgil, Member Shri Prem Ranjan Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Protiti Roy, Legal Consult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urchase of the shares of M/s. Owen Brockway (I) Ltd. by M/s. Hindustan National Glass Industries Ltd. with the proper approval of Reserve Bank of India. The name of existing M/s. Owen Brockway (I) Ltd. was changed to M/s. ACE Glass Container Ltd. w.e.f. 15-3-2002. Subsequently M/s. ACE Glass Container Ltd. was merged with M/s. Hindustan National Glass Industries Ltd. vide order dated 19-3-2008 passed by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi and order dated 7-4-2008 passed by Hon ble Kolkata High Court. The appellant company received a certificate of public demand from the Certificate Officer, South 24 Paragana, Alipur, Kolkata demanding ₹ 2 crores from the appellant. It has been contended that the delay in filing the instant appeal is b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er submission is that the appellant has purchased shares of M/s. Owen Brockway (I) Ltd. after approval of RBI. M/s. Owen Brockway was changed to M/s. ACE Glass Container from 15-3-2002 and necessary information in this regard was duly submitted to Registrar companies. M/s. ACE Glass Brockway merged with the appellant vide order of the Hon ble Delhi and Calcutta High Courts. Further submission is that there is no deliberate delay on the part of the appellant in filing instant appeal and the alleged transaction was not made by the appellant and no liability can legally be fixed upon the appellant in this respect and entire proceedings were held ex parte on the basis of fake report of services by affixation of show cause notice. Further procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
