Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (4) TMI 629

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed by the Company Law Board. Mr.Dubash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent raises a preliminary issue that this Court has no power to condone the delay beyond the period of 60 days and that also provided sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay is made out. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant in support of this application submits that the impugned order was passed on 27th March, 2014. The applicant received the certified copy of the impugned order on 2nd April, 2014. The applicant lodged the company appeal on 17th October, 2014 before this Court. He submits that the applicant had severe medical condition and stress and was advised complete rest at home and was under the treatment of Dr.B.T. Kate, M.D. Consult .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ounsel also fairly invited my attention to the judgment of this Court delivered on 17th September, 2009 in case of Smt.Hetal Alpesh Muchhala vs. Adityesh Educational Institute & Ors. in Company Application No.843 of 2009 in Company Appeal (Lodging) No.48 of 2009, the judgment of this Court delivered on 11th March, 2014, in case of Jagdish Lal Gupta vs. Tara Industries Limited, Mumbai & Ors. in Company Application (Lodging) No.32 of 2013 and also the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Pawan Goel vs. Kmg Milk Food Limited & Ors. delivered on 22nd February, 2008. 6. Insofar as the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Patel Brothers (supra) is concerned, the Supreme Court has construed the provisions of section 29(2) of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e powers vested in the Court under section 10-F to condone the delay on sufficient cause being shown is directory and subject to the discretion vested in the Court. However, the maximum period to the extent of which such delay is capable of being condoned is mandatorily prescribed and not open to exercise of any discretion. The words "not exceeding" cannot be given any other meaning except "not more than" and "not beyond" or "not thereafter". 8. It is held that the words not exceeding 60 days would amount to express exclusion within the meaning of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and would therefore, bar the application of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956. It is held that to hold tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ew of Companies Act, 1956 being a special statute and upon considering the language of section 10-F, in my view it is clear that the Company Court has no power to condone delay beyond the period of 60 days. The said provision provides for 60 days time to file an appeal against the order of the Company Law Board from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Company Law on any question of law arising out of such order. The proviso to the said section clearly makes it clear that the Court has power to condone delay only upto the period of 60 days and only if the appellant makes out a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the extended period. The words "not exceeding 60 days" makes it clear that the power to condone .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ficient cause is made out by the appellant and not otherwise. In my view, even if the applicant makes out a sufficient cause for delay beyond the grace period of 60 days, the Court has no power to condone such delay. There is thus no substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 13. Insofar as the Doctor's certificate annexed at Exhibit "A" to the company application is concerned, in my view since this Court has no power to condone delay beyond the period of 60 days and admittedly in this case delay is 135 days, Doctor's certificate produced by the applicant in support of his case that he was prevented from sufficient cause from filing appeal within the period of 60 days is of no assistance to the appli .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates