Mecamidi S.A vs Mecamidi Hpp India Private Ltd
- CitationComp. App (AT) No. 224 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's power under the proviso to Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 to condone delay is confined to the further period of 45 days after the initial 45-day limitation period has expired; where an appeal is presented after that outer limit, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone without examining the reasons for delay.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Mecamidi S.A ...Appellant Through Jean Leon Zekri Vs. Mecamidi HPP India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents Present: For Appellant: Ms. Ramni Taneja, Advocate
For Respondent: Mr. Ankur Goel, Advocate for R1-4
ORDER
15.12.2022: Heard Ms. Ramni Taneja, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant.
The present appeal was filed much belatedly. The impugned order was
passed on 20.09.2021 and as per computation, limitation in filing the appeal,
expired on 04.11.2021. However, the appeal was presented before the registry of
this Tribunal on 18.08.2022.
It was submitted by ld. Counsel for the Appellant that within time, e-filing
of appeal was done but hard copy was filed belatedly. Even though the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in suo moto matter due to Covid- 19 affect, had extended the
period of limitation upto February end, 2022, however, if we propose to count
the date of limitation after excluding the period in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court
order, still the appeal was filed much beyond the period of limitation as
prescribed under Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 which prescribes
initial 45 days and thereafter, if it is filed beyond 45 days further within 45 days, this Tribunal is competent to condone the appeal on being satisfied with the
reason.
Meaning thereby that, after the expiry of extended period of 45 days even
though there are some reasons, this court is not entitled to entertain such
appeal. The casual approach of the appellant is further evident from the fact that
after presentation of the appeal, on scrutiny, certain defects were noticed by the
Tribunal and, thereafter, it was intimated to the Appellant on 25.08.2022.
However, it was re-filed after about 93 days. It was re-filed on 01.12.2022.
Accordingly, the 'Registrar' of this Tribunal by its order dated 12.12.2022 has
placed the appeal before this court to examine condonation of delay in re-filing.
If the appeal itself was filed much beyond limitation period for which we are not
entitled to condone, there is no reason to further examine delay in refiling.
On this ground alone, the Appeal stands dismissed.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar] Member (Judicial)
[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical) Raushan/Gc
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