Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac) vs Vs Sowrirajan
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (CH) No.7/2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's reasoning contains two grounds, which I state in the order the court takes them. On the application for condonation of the 153-day delay in re-filing the appeal: where the delay in re-presenting an appeal is explained by the appellant's own administrative circumstances, namely transfer of the officials handling the matter and the official schedule of its offices, and the respondent has no say in that matter, the Tribunal may, on being subjectively satisfied with those reasons and taking a lenient, liberal and pragmatic view, condone the delay. On the appeal itself: where the impugned order was made on an application that had become infructuous because the underlying insolvency proceeding had been disposed of by the company's dissolution, and no subject matter remained for adjudication, the appeal against that order is to be dismissed at the threshold.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of the 'Impugned Order' dated 27.07.2023 passed by the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench, in I.A. (IBC) 1209(CHE)/2023 in CP/593/IB/2017)
In the matter of:
Govt. of Tamil Nadu Commercial Taxes and Registration Dept. Rep by Assistant Commissioner (ST), Office of Assistant Commissioner (ST), Central-1, Assessment Circle, Avinashi Road, Emperor Building, Tiruppur 641 603 ... Appellant
V
Mr. VS Sowrirajan, Liquidator of M/s Vijai Mahalakshmi Spinning Mills India Private Limited, C2, Vijayarengaa Apartments, 64, West Adayavalanchan Street, Srirangam, Trichy - 620006 ...Respondent
Present :
For Appellant : Mr. G. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate For Mr. B. Vijay, Advocate
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 08.04.2024:
IA/136/2024
Heard the Learned Counsel for the 'Petitioner'/'Appellant' in IA/136/2024 in the main Comp. App (AT)(CH) No.7 of 2024.
Comp App (AT) (CH) No.7/2024 Page 1 of 3 According to the 'Petitioner'/'Appellant', when the 'Petitioner'/'Department' had made an 'enquiry' before the 'Office of the Registry' as to the 'status' of the 'Appeal' preferred by the 'Petitioner'/'Appellant' this 'Tribunal', which was informed that the 'Appeal' was returned to comply with the defects pointed out by the 'Registry' on 31.08.2023, however, the concerned officials in charge of the 'Petitioner'/'Appellant' had made earnest endeavour in complying with all the documents pertaining to the 'instant Case'.
The reason for the delay in representing the instant 'Appeal' in refiling of 'Appeal' papers, attributable on the part of the 'Petitioner'/'Appellant' is that the Department Transfer of the concerned officials by the 'Appellant' had resulted in the 'Petitioner'/'Appellant' in re-filing of the 'Appeal Paper(s)' with a delay of 153 days which is neither wilful nor wanton but due to the aforesaid reason.
The other reason mentioned in IA/136/2024 in Comp. App (AT)(CH) No.7 of 2024 is that the 'Petitioner'/'Appellant' is situated at 'Tiruppur' and due to 'official schedule of work', the 'Petitioner'/'Appellant' was unable to get the physical copies of the 'Appeal' Papers from this 'Tribunal', Chennai, duly complied with the defects.
Considering the fact that the 'Delay in Representation' is a matter between the 'Petitioner'/'Appellant'/'Department' and this 'Tribunal' and that the 'Respondent' has no say in the matter. This 'Tribunal' on being subjectively satisfied as to the reasons ascribed on behalf of the 'Petitioner'/'Appellant' at para 12 of IA/136/2024 in Comp. App (AT)(CH) No.7 of 2024 filed by the 'Petitioner'/'Appellant'/'Department' by taking a lenient, liberal and pragmatic view condones the 'delay of 153 days in Refiling of 'Appeal Paper(s)' and accordingly, the IA/136/2024 is allowed but without costs.
Comp. App (AT)(CH) 7 of 2024
Heard the Learned representing Counsel Mr. Dinesh Kumar appearing for the 'Petitioner'/'Appellant'/'Department'. According to the Learned Counsel for the 'Appellant', the instant Comp. App. (AT)(CH) No.7 of 2024 is filed by the 'Petitioner'/'Appellant'/'Department' in respect of the 'Impugned Order' dated 27.07.2023 in IA(IBC)/1209(CHE)/2023 in CP/593/IB/2017 on the file of the 'Adjudicating Authority' / National Company Law Tribunal, Special Bench Court-1, Chennai before the 'Adjudicating Authority'/'Tribunal', the 'Petitioner'/'Appellant' had filed IA(IBC)/1209(CHE)/2023 in CP/593/IB/2017 seeking 'Condonation of
Comp App (AT) (CH) No.7/2024 Page 2 of 3 Delay of 695 days, in preferring the Petition/Application, assailing of 'Rejection of Claim' of the 'Official Liquidator' dated 16.11.2020. The indisputable fact is that the main Petition IA(IBC)/998(CHE)/2023 was disposed of by the 'Adjudicating Authority'/'Tribunal' on 23.06.2023.
There is no two opinion of a candid fact that the instant case the 'Company' was dissolved through an order dated 31.05.2023 in IA/1249/IB/2020 and viewed in that perspective, the 'Adjudicating Authority'/'Tribunal', had dismissed the IA/1249/IB/2020 in CP/583/IB/2017 and disposed of the said matter.
In view of the fact that the IA/1249/IB/2020 in CP/583/IB/2017 had become an 'infructuous', one and nothing remains, to be adjudicated, in the subject matter of issue, and also this 'Tribunal' on going through the 'Impugned Order' dated 27.07.2023 in IA(IBC)/1209(CHE)/2023 in CP/593/IB/2017 is left with no other option except to dismiss the instant Company Appeal (AT)(CH) No.7 of 2024 at the threshold itself. No costs.
[Justice M. Venugopal] Member (Judicial)
[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)
[Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical) SE/TM
Comp App (AT) (CH) No.7/2024 Page 3 of 3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free