Elegant Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Shishir B. Nevatia & Ors

Elegant Industries Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Shishir B. Nevatia & Ors. ...Respondents

Present:

For Appellant : Dr. Surender Singh Hooda and Mr. Aditya Hooda, Advocates

For Respondents : Mr. Shikhil Suri, Mr. Shiv Kumar Suri, Ms. Shilpa Saini, Ms. Vinishma Kaul and Ms. Shakshi, Advocates

ORDER

16.07.2018 These appeals under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013

has been preferred by appellant against the common impugned order dated 31st

January, 2018 along with an application for condonation of delay under sub-

section (3) of Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 after expiry of the period

of forty-five days in preferring the appeal, the Appellate Tribunal has power to

condone the delay but not exceeding forty-five days, if it is satisfied that the 2

appellant prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the period

prescribe.

In the present case, the impugned order was passed on 31st January, 2018

and its copy was made available on 17th April, 2018. Therefore, the appellant

was required to file the appeal by 1st June, 2018, but the appeal was filed

thereafter on 25th June, 2018. Therefore, we find that the appeal was filed after

24 days beyond the prescribed period of 45 days.

Mr. Shikhil Suri, Advocate have appeared on behalf of the respondent.

Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the

learned counsel appearing for the respondent and being satisfied with the

grounds shown in the application, the delay of 24 days in preferring the appeal

is condoned.

I.A. Nos. 919 and I.A. No. 1007 of 2018 stand disposed of.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of

imposition of cost on the appellant. From the record, we find that two

Miscellaneous Applications were filed by the appellant (Respondent in the

Company Petition) challenging the appearance of the legal representative and

Vakalatnama filed by them. Such objection was not accepted by the Tribunal

and taking into consideration the fact that cross-petitions were pending for the

last more than 7 to 8 years, Tribunal imposed cost of Rupees One Lakh each on

both the appellant in both Transfer Petitions.

Taking into consideration, the nature of the case and hearing the counsel

for the parties, we are of the view that though the objections raised by the

appellants may not have any merits, but it was not a case for imposition of cost.

I.A. Nos. 919 & 1007 / 2018 IN Company Appeal (AT) No. 217 & 226 of 2018 3

For the said reason. We set aside the impugned order dated 31st January,

2018, so far it relates to imposition of cost on both the appellant but with

direction to the appellant not to prolong the cases and to co-operate with the

Tribunal for early disposal of the petition. The Tribunal may hear the petitions

on day-to-day basis if so required and pass appropriate order in accordance with

law. Respondents are also directed to co-operate with the Tribunal and not to

ask for unnecessary adjournment.

We make it clear that we have not set aside the substantive impugned

order dated 31st January, 2018, which has been decided on merit. However, the

same will not come in the way of the Tribunal while deciding the main petitions.

Both the appeals stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[ Justice Bansi Lal Bhat ] Member (Judicial)

/ns/uk/

I.A. Nos. 919 & 1007 / 2018 IN Company Appeal (AT) No. 217 & 226 of 2018