Hareshbhai Ambalal Patel vs Registrar Of Companies

IN THE MATTER OF: Hareshbhai Ambalal Patel Shareholder of Patidar Chemical Pvt. Ltd ...Appellant

Versus

Registrar of Companies ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Ms. Natasha Dhruman Shah, Advocate

For Respondent : Mr. Vikrant N Goyal, Mr. Abhishrut Singh, Mr. Jaswant Rai Aggarwal and Mr. Satvik Goyal, Advocates

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

01.04.2024 This Appeal is against an order dated 09.09.2020, whereby

the appeal filed by the Appellant viz. a shareholder of the company namely M/s

Patidar Chemical Private Limited seeking restoration of the name of the

company in the Register of the ROC, was dismissed on the ground of limitation.

Admittedly, the statutory returns were not filed by the Company since the year,

2007 and it led to the issuing of notice dated 03.07.2017 by the ROC and

striking off the name of the Company from the Register of the Companies. An

appeal filed by Appellant was dismissed on the ground it was barred by

limitation per Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013.

2. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant argues that appeal before the

Learned NCLT was filed under Section 253 of the Companies Act and not under

Section 252(1) of the Act. Section 252(3) of the Act gives a limitation to be 20 years instead of three years as is in Section 251(1) of the Act. It is argued in

its appeal, the Appellant had never challenged the legality of order dated

03.07.2017 of the RoC, but had requested to restore the name of the company

on grounds which were just and equitable to restore the name of the company.

3. Even otherwise, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court had directed as follows:

"I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi- judicial proceedings.

II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.

III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4)

Company Appeal (AT) No. 176 of 2020 2 of 3 and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings."

4. Thus, in any case, the three-year period for filing an appeal, even under

Section 252(1) was to expire on 02.07.2020, which was well within the period

as noted in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 and limitation during such

period was rather exempted.

5. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits the

appellant shall be satisfied, if the impugned order is set aside to say the appeal

was within limitation and let the Learned NCLT decide the appeal of the

Appellant on merits.

6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 09.09.2020 is set aside,

in view of directions given in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 and the

appeal be decided by the Learned NCLT on merits. The Appeal stands disposed

of. Pending Applications, if any, are also disposed of.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) pks/kam

Company Appeal (AT) No. 176 of 2020 3 of 3