Mr Chaitanya Manohar vs M/S All Square Realtors India Pvt Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 90/2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The period of limitation of 90 days prescribed by Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 for preferring an appeal runs from the date the certified copy of the impugned order is made available to the appellant, and where the appeal is filed after that period has expired, it is barred by limitation. Where the delay in filing is inordinately long, and the appellant has taken an unexplained further period to cure registry defects despite repeated opportunities, the Tribunal's power to condone delay under Section 421(3) is circumscribed by the strict limitation scheme and does not extend to condoning a delay of that magnitude; the applications for condonation of delay are accordingly rejected and the appeal falls with them.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
7. Redwoods Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., The Estate NKo.403, 121, Dickenson Road Bangalore, India 560 042. ... Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Ms. Preeti Mohan, Advocate
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
03.01.2025
A few precise facts which are required to be dealt with by us, while
deciding this company appeal on the basis of the limitation, where the appellant
while invoking the provisions contained under Section 421 of the Companies
Act 2013, impugns the order of 13.06.2019, as it was rendered in CP No.
52/2013 (TP No. 49/2016), in a proceeding which were held under Section 397
& 398 of the Companies Act. What is apparent from the certified copy of the
impugned order itself is that, in respect of the aforesaid proceeding of the
Company Petition No. 52/2013, which was decided on 13.06.2019, the certified
copy of the impugned order was made available to the appellant on 20.06.2019
itself, meaning thereby the period of limitation of 90 days prescribed for
preferring an appeal under Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, has expired,
much prior to the date of preferring of this appeal, which is 03.01.2022, and not
even that, after filing of the Appeal before the registry on 03.01.2022, the
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 90/2024 Page 2 of 3 Appellant has taken an inordinately long time to rectify the defects, despite
being given several chances by the Registry and has ultimately, re-filed the
same after a delay of 589 days. It is too long a period to be condoned while
exercising our powers under Section 421(3) of the Companies Act which itself
is circumscribed by strict implications of limitations.
In that eventuality, when the appeal itself apparently suffers from a bar of
limitation, and that too for a period beyond what has been statutorily prescribed
under Section 421 of the Companies Act, the Condone Delay Application being
IA No. 1319/2024, and the Application to condone delay in Re-filing being IA
No. 1320/2024, would hereby stand 'rejected' and as a consequence thereto the
'appeal' too would 'be laid to rest'.
[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)
[Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical)
SNTM/MS
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 90/2024 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