Future System Private Limited & Anr vs The Registrar Of Companies
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 173 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 prescribes a 45-day period for filing an appeal, extendable by a further period not exceeding 45 days on proof of sufficient cause, the Appellate Tribunal has no power to condone any delay beyond the total outer limit of 90 days from the date of the copy of the Tribunal's order being made available. Where a statute provides that a thing is to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner, and the statutory Tribunal may not travel beyond the scope of the statute in extending the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Future Systems Pvt. Ltd. &Anr. ...Appellants Versus Registrar of Companies NCT of Delhi &Anr. ...Respondents Present: For Appellants : Mr. Prakash Gautam, Mr. Vivek Ojha, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Shlok Chandra, Jr. Standing Counsel. Mr. Keshav Garg, Ms. Mansie Jain, Advocates for R- 2/Income Tax Department.
ORDER
03.11.2022: Heard Mr. Prakash Gautam, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant
and Mr. Keshav Garg, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2/
Income Tax Department.
The present Appeal has been preferred under Section 421 of the
Companies Act, 2013. Admittedly the Appeal has been preferred after delay of
82 days. For condoning delay the limitation petition has been filed vide I.A. No.
3450 of 2022. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant tried to persuade that this
Tribunal is competent to condone delay. Before considering the submissions of
the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant it is needed to reproduce Section 421 of the
Companies Act, 2013 which is as follows:
"(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.
(2) No appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal from an order made by the Tribunal with the consent of parties.
-2- (3) Every Appeal under Sub-Section (1) shall be filed within a period of forty-five days from the date on which a copy of the order of the Tribunal is made available to the person aggrieved and shall be in such form, and accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed.
Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days from the date aforesaid, but within a further period not exceeding forty-five days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within that period
(4) On the receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Appellate Tribunal shall, after giving the parties to the appeal a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or setting aside the order appealed against.
(5) The Appellate Tribunal shall send a copy of every order made by it to the Tribunal and the parties to appeal".
Considering the provision contained in Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, this Tribunal is not permitted to entertain an appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act after expiry of total period of 90 days. The proviso to Section 421(3) of the Companies Act is very much clear that appeal is to be filed within 45 days. Thereafter delay up to 45 days can be condoned on being satisfied by the reasons for delay. However, this Section does not permit this tribunal to entertain an appeal after expiry of total period of 90 days. If the statutory provision is very much specific on the point of condonation of delay, being statutory Tribunal we may not travel beyond the scope of statute. Moreover it is settled principle of law that if statute provides to do a thing in particular manner, same is to be done in the same manner.
Company Appeal (AT) No. 173 of 2022 -3-
In view of the facts and circumstances we are not in a position to
entertain the condonation delay petition. Consequently the Appeal also stands
dismissed.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar] Member (Judicial)
[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical)
sr/gc Company Appeal (AT) No. 173 of 2022
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