9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vent of delay whether the Appellant has carved out a case for Condonation of delay? - HELD THAT:- The appeal is hopelessly time barred. Even if, the period of limitation is computed from 15th October, 2018 i.e. the date on which free certified copy was made available to the Appellant, the appeal has been preferred beyond prescribed 45 days and in absence of even the slightest whisper in the Condonation of delay application about a reasonable cause/ sufficient ground justifying Condonation of delay, there would be no justification to condone the delay. The appeal on this count is held to be not maintainable. It is manifestly clear that no delinquency can be attributed to Respondents for non-compliance or breach. While switching over to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t penalties besides allowing them to file their Form - 8 and Form - 11. The Tribunal, after consideration of the matter, allowed the petition in terms of the impugned order dated 6th September, 2018 holding that there was no willful negligence on the part of Respondents herein, particularly, when they had been filing their Form - 8 and Form 11 till year 2015-16 without any objection from the Appellant herein which was possible only after submission of Form No. 3. Aggrieved thereof the Appellant has filed the instant appeal on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction as the Appellant had not refused to register or give effect to conversion of the companies into LLPs and the Respondents could approach the Central Government only for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012 and Forms 8 and 11 were accepted from 2012 to 2016 without raising any objection with respect to Form No. 3. Later the Respondents came to know that the Form 3 filed earlier was not taken on record. The objection in this regard came to the knowledge of Respondents only after filing RTI. It became known that there were some objections to the Form 3 already filed which were to be rectified but since the same were not rectified, the Form 3 filed was declared invalid. Subsequently the Respondents were informed that they would have to file fresh Form-3 which meant that they will have to pay a heavy penalty of about ₹ 10,86,000/- for removal of objections as regards each of the Respondents. The Respondents further averred in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of LLP Act, which prescribes registration and effect of conversion. Both these Sections are providing a procedure for such conversion from Company to LLP, therefore, required to comply certain formalities of submission of requisite forms. It is not a case of non-submissions but a case of confusion in filing, that too due to change in the procedure originally prescribed. Under these circumstances, it is not justifiable to doubt the bonafides of the Petitioners. Compliance of a procedure is to be taken leniently if it is not disturbing the enacted law itself. The learned Tribunal was of the view that there was no willful negligence from the side of the Respondents, particularly when they were able to file their Form - 8 and Form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the knowledge of the Appellant through the letter of Respondents dated 28th September, 2018 but the appeal could not be preferred within the period of limitation. The Appellant admittedly was a party to the proceedings in the Company Petition before the Tribunal and the order was pronounced in presence of its counsel which clearly emerges from the impugned order. Therefore, knowledge has ordinarily to be reckoned from the date of the order as the Appellant was not a stranger to the proceedings. But it is provided that the period of limitation will be computed from the date the copy of certified order is made available to the Appellant. Even if it be assumed that the Appellant was not aware of the pronouncement of the impugned order, it cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainable, be it seen that the Appellant has no case on merit either. Admittedly, the Respondents complied with the procedure as was in vogue when the Respondents were converted from Private Companies into LLPs. Admittedly, Form-3 was accepted and no defects therein were communicated to the Respondents for rectification. This was followed by filing of Form Nos. 8 and 11 which were accepted without demur from 2012 to 2016. It is indisputable as also not controverted that Form Nos. 8 and 11 could not have been accepted by the Competent Authority unless Form-3 was accepted. It is not in dispute that the MCA introduced the computerized system from 2013. If, the Form-3 filed by the Respondents prior to 2013 was not captured in the database of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
