Preeti Vipul Ambani vs Union Of India

04.09.2023. However, while dictating judgement it was notice that

the appeal was not ripe for hearing in view of the fact that the main

appeal was filed after the expiry of 45 days of limitation and in the

appeal an Interlocutory Application i.e. IA No.596 of 2023 was filed

for condonation of delay. Thereafter we directed to list the appeal

under the caption 'for orders' on 20.09.2023. On 20.09.2023 the

appeal was adjourned to 25.09.2023 so that learned counsel for

the parties may address the court on Interlocutory application

which has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Since we are considering the condonation of delay application, 2

there is no need to go into the merit of the case. However,

summarily it can be recorded that appeal was filed against an

order dated 21.10.2022 passed by the learned NCLT, Mumbai

Bench, Court I. By the said order the learned NCLT had rejected

MA No.1705/2019 which was filed in CP No.277/MB/2018. The

CP No.277/2018 was filed by Union of India mainly after noticing

the fact that fraud was committed by a company which was

virtually controlled by one Mr. Neerav Modi and one another

company. The fact remain that it was alleged that more than

Rs.11000 crores was defrauded by accused person. After initiation

of the proceedings on the basis of CP 227/2018 subsequently

involvement of husband of the appellant namely Vipul Natvarlal

Ambani had come to fore and he was made accused and taken into

custody. It was noticed that a demat account was running in the

joint name of Vipul Natvarlal Ambani, husband of appellant and

appellant. Subsequently further application was filed by Union of

India with a request to freeze the said account. Thereafter an

application was filed by the appellant claiming that whatever

securities were lying in the account was of the appellant not of her

husbands' contribution. However, Learned NCLT by the impugned 3

order has rejected the prayer of the appellant. The appellant

assailing the impugned order has filed the present appeal.

This is not in dispute that the appeal was filed belatedly and

as such IA was filed for condonation of delay vide IA No.596/2023.

For the first the appeal was taken up on 13.02.2023 on which date

learned counsel for the appellant requested this Tribunal to allow

him file hard copy of the certain documents of the NCLT which was

allowed. Thereafter on 24.02.2023 again appeal was taken up and

it was adjourned for filing of response to the reply of the

respondents. On 08.05.2023 it was noticed by this Tribunal that

condonation of delay application was filed in the present appeal

and as such the matter was adjourned. Finally on 04.09.2023

learned counsel for the appellant addressed the Court on merit

and order was reserved. The fact that the appeal was not ripe for

hearing since the delay in filing the appeal was not condoned was

not noticed by this Bench. Only when the order was being dictated

it was noticed that condonation of delay application was not

allowed and as such the appeal was directed to be listed on the

question of condonation of delay. Before proceeding it would be

appropriate to reproduce the IA No.596/2023 which has been filed 4

for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Same is reproduced

as follows:-

"1. The appellant herein has filed the accompanying appeal

under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 arising out of

order dated 21st October, 2022 passed under Section (s) 241 -

242 of the Companies Act, 2013 in MA 1705/2019 in CP (IB)-

277/MB/2018 by the Hon'ble NCLT, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai.

2. It is submitted that Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013

provides that an appeal under the section may be filed within

a period of forty five days from the date on which a copy of

order of the Tribunal is made available to the person aggrieved.

It further provides that the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may

entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty

five days for a further period of forty five days if it is satisfied

that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from

filing the appeal.

3. The hearing of MA 1705/2019 concluded on 23 rd August,

2022 and the same was reserved for orders. The operative

part of the impugned order was pronounced inopen court on

21st October, 2022 and certified copy of the impugned order

was applied for on 31st October, 2022 after the Tribunal 5

reopened post Diwali vacations, and made available to the

Appellant on 2nd November, 2022.

4. It is submitted if the said date that the order is made

available to the aggrieved party in the instant case is taken to

be 2nd November, 2022 after re-opening of the Hon'ble NCLT

after Diwali vacations, there has been a minor, inadvertent

delay of six days in filing of the present appeal.

5. If, however, the period from 22nd October, 2022 to 30th

October, 2022 is not excluded in the computation of the period

of limitation, then there is a minor delay of 42 days in filing the

appeal. The delay has occurred not on account of any

deliberate act, omission or negligence on the part of the

appellant but because the impugned order was passed just

before the Diwali Vacation and the appellant was travelling

and was out of station from 24th October, 2022 to 18th

November. It therefore took time for the appellant to co-

ordinate with her lawyers and finalise the appeal due to the

intervening holidays.

6. It is prayed that the delay of 42 days may kindly be

condoned in the interest of justice. The appellatns submitted

that the delay is unintentional and has been caused due to 6

reasons beyond their control. It is therefore in the interest of

justice that the delay is condoned and the appeal is heard and

decided on merits otherwise the appellants will suffer

irreparable injury and prejudice substantial loss and the

whole purpose of filing this appeal will be defeated. The

impugned order is also in the teeth of various judicial

pronouncements of Tribunals, High Courts and the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India.

7. It is submitted that the appellant has a good case on merits

and considerable prejudeice will be caused to the appellant if

delay is not condoned. However, no hard will be caused to the

appellant if delay is condoned.

8. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble

Appellate Tribunal may be pleased to allow this application,

condone the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal and the

appeal may be heard and decided on merits at an early date."

On perusal of the aforesaid application it is evident that in

para 3 the appellant has stated that the certified copy of the

impugned order was applied for on 31.10.2022 and thereafter the

certified copy of the impugned order was made available on

2.11.2022. The reasons for delay in filing the appeal has been 7

explained as if the appellant was travelling and was out of station

from 24th October, 2022 to 18.11.2022, whereas the impugned

order reflects that the certified copy was applied for on 02.11.2022

and it was made available to the appellant on 03.11.2022.

Meaning thereby that the facts disclosed in condonation of delay

application is erroneous and contrary to the record. Moreover the

reason assigned that the appellant was travelling and was out of

station is also not a sufficient reason to persuade us to act upon

such reason in condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Normally

if delay is occurred in filing an appeal it is expected that the

appellant may explain the delay on day to day basis. However, in

the present case neither specific reason has been assigned nor

correct statement has been made. In such situation as well as in

the absence of showing any plausible reason which prevented the

appellant to file appeal within time, we have no option but to reject

the application for condonation of delay. Accordingly, IA

No.596/2023 stands dismissed. Consequently the appeal too is

dismissed. We may record that we have not dealt with in any

manner on the merit of the case. The condonation of delay

application stands dismissed not only on the ground of delay in 8

filing the appeal but also for making incorrect statement in the

condonation of delay application.

Accordingly IA stands dismissed and also the appeal too

stands dismissed.

(Justice Rakesh Kumar) Member (Judicial)

(Dr. Alok Srivastava) Member (Technical) Bm/md