Roc Guwahati vs Gomukhi Construction Private Limited

1

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI COMPANY APPEAL (AT) NO.227 OF 2025 & IA No.5660/2025 In the matter of: ROC Guwahati Appellant Vs Gomukhi Constructions (P) Ltd & Ors Respondent For Appellant: Mr. Durga Dutt, Advocate. ORDER

HYBRID MODE 12.11.2025:This is an appeal against an impugned order dated 14.05.2024

passed by the Ld. NCLT, Guwahati in Execution Petition No.1/GB/2023.

2. This appeal has been moved with a delay of 431 days and for which IA

No.5660/2025 is moved. If one peruse the IA, it is admitted by the appellant the

period of limitation is to be reckoned with from 03.09.2024 as it is the date when

the office of the applicant had received the impugned order i.e. the date of

approval of 'E form INC-28' filed by the applicant alongwith copy of the Ld. NCLT

order dated 14.05.2024.

3. It is alleged the appellant could not file the instant appeal without proper

authorization and sanction from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government

of India and such approval or sanction was applied for on 11.09.2024 and the

same was received by the appellant on 16.07.2025 and as such interregnum

period be excluded and delay of 431 days be condoned. Heard. 2

4. In Bengal Chemists and Druggists Association Vs Kalyan Chowdhury

(2018) 3 Supreme Court Cases 41 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

4) A cursory reading of Section 421(3) makes it clear that the proviso provides a period of limitation different from that provided in the Limitation Act, and also provides a further period not exceeding 45 days only if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within that period. Section 433 obviously cannot come to the aid of the appellant because the provisions of the Limitation Act only apply "as far as may be". In a case like the present, where there is a special provision contained in Section 421(3) proviso, Section 5 of the Limitation Act obviously cannot apply.

5) Another very important aspect of the case is that 45 days is the period of limitation, and a further period not exceeding 45 days is provided only if sufficient cause is made out for filing the appeal within the extended period. According to us, this is a peremptory provision, which will otherwise be rendered completely ineffective, if we were to accept the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. If we were to accept such argument, it would mean that notwithstanding that the further period of 45 days had elapsed, the Appellate Tribunal may, if the facts so warrant, condone the delay. This would be to render otiose the second time limit of 45 days, which, as has been pointed out by us above, is peremptory in nature.

6) We are fortified in this conclusion by the judgment of this Court in Chhattisgarh SEB v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2010 (5) SCC 23. The language of Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which is similar to the language contained in Section 421 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013, came up for consideration in the aforesaid decision. The issue that arose before this Court was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be invoked for allowing the aggrieved person to file an appeal beyond 60 days plus the further grace period of 60 days This Court held that Section 5 cannot apply to Section 125 of the Electricity Act in the following terms:

"25. Section 125 lays down that any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Tribunal can file an appeal to this Court within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Tribunal. Proviso to Section 125 empowers this Court to entertain 3

an appeal filed within a further period of 60 days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing appeal within the initial period of 60 days. This shows that the period of limitation prescribed for filing appeals under Sections 111(2) and 125 is substantially different from the period prescribed under the Limitation Act for filing suits, etc. The use of the expression "within a further period not exceeding 60 days" in the proviso to Section 125 makes it clear that the outer limit for filing an appeal is 120 days. There is no provision in the Act under which this Court can entertain an appeal filed against the decision or order of the Tribunal after more than 120 days."

The aforesaid judgment was reiterated and followed in ONGC v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited, 2017 (5) SCC 42 at Para 5.

4. In view of law laid down above by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, admittedly

the present appeal is not within grace period provided by the Legislature and is

much beyond such period and hence the delay beyond the grace period cannot

be condoned. Considering the law above, we are not inclined to condone such a

huge delay, hence the application for condonation of delay stands dismissed.

5. The appeal being beyond limitation, cannot be entertained and accordingly

is also dismissed.

6. Pending applications are also disposed of.

(Justice Yogesh Khanna) Member (Judicial)

(Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra) Member (Technical) Bm/rr