2023 (4) TMI 1298 - AT - Companies Law

Appeal dismissed for 33-day delay beyond statutory 45-day period under Section 421 without satisfactory explanation

Gursharan Singh Sawhney Versus Harkiran Kaur Sawhney and Ors.

NCLAT dismissed an appeal for 33-day delay in filing beyond the statutory 45-day period under Section 421. The appellant failed to provide plausible ... Condonation of delay of 33 days in filing appeal - sufficient reason for delay or not - HELD THAT:- It is evident that no plausible reason has been assigned for delay in filing the appeal. Under provision contained in Section 421 an appeal is to be filed within 45 days, however if further after expiry of 45 days appeal is not filed, then thereafter this tribunal is not competent to entertain the appeal. However, if during extended within 45 days, a party in a position to satisfy the court regarding the reasonable ground for delay, this court may entertain such petition. Considering the statement made in the condonation petition, it is not satisfying that any plausible explanation has been given for delay in filing the appeal. Normally, in condonation of delay application, it is required on the part of the party to explain day to day delay, however, in the present application no such explanation has been given and as such there are no ground to condone the delay. The appeal stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the NCLT committed jurisdictional error in entertaining and adjudicating a petition under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 when the petitioning party allegedly lacked the requisite shareholding or statutory locus under Section 244. 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal should admit and decide an appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 filed after the prescribed period, where the application for condonation of delay fails to furnish a day-to-day explanation or plausible grounds for the delay. 3. Whether an interim direction that an EOGM may proceed but an identified agenda item shall not be taken up, together with a direction to maintain status quo, was within the NCLT's powers and appropriate on the material before it. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Jurisdictional competence of NCLT to entertain petitions under Sections 241-242 when petitioner allegedly lacks shareholding/locus under Section 244 Legal framework: Sections 241-242 provide remedies for oppression and mismanagement; Section 244 prescribes who may apply (including certain members or shareholders) and the locus requirements to maintain such petitions. Precedent treatment: No binding judicial precedents were applied or overruled in the reasoning; the Court considered the parties' pleadings and record on locus rather than treating any authority as decisive. Interpretation and reasoning: The Appellant contended that the petition before the NCLT was filed by a party without the requisite shareholding (alleged non-shareholder) and that statements within pleadings referred to shareholding in a different company, implying misjoinder and lack of locus. The Tribunal recorded these contentions but did not undertake substantive adjudication of the jurisdictional challenge because the appeal was ultimately dismissed on limitation grounds. The NCLT, on the face of the impugned order, allowed continuance of the EOGM but restrained taking up the specific agenda item and directed status quo; these directions reflect exercise of provisional powers to protect interests pending adjudication. Ratio vs. Obiter: The appeal record indicates the jurisdictional challenge was argued but not resolved on its merits by the Appellate Tribunal because the appeal was dismissed as time-barred. Any observations regarding alleged misjoinder or locus are therefore obiter; no ratio was laid down on the substantive question of Section 244 compliance. Conclusions: The Tribunal did not decide the jurisdictional issue substantively. The contention of lack of locus before the NCLT remains unadjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal, and any findings in the impugned NCLT order permitting interim relief (status quo and exclusion of the agenda item) stand undisturbed by the appeal because the appeal was dismissed on limitation grounds. Issue 2 - Admissibility of appeal under Section 421 when filed beyond 45-day period and sufficiency of condonation pleading Legal framework: Section 421 prescribes appeals to the Appellate Tribunal from NCLT orders, including a statutory limitation period (45 days). The Tribunal has discretion to condone delay within that statutory framework where sufficient cause is shown; condonation requires a plausible and preferably day-wise explanation of delay and demonstration that the delay was not deliberate or inordinate. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on established practice concerning condonation of delay (requirement of plausible, specific reasons and day-to-day explanation) rather than invoking a particular precedent. No precedent was followed or distinguished explicitly in the written reasoning reproduced. Interpretation and reasoning: The Appellant's condonation application purported to explain delay by reference to uncertainty about the uploading date of the NCLT order, alleged initiation of contempt proceedings by the respondent, and the necessity to address multiple related petitions. The Tribunal examined the condonation pleading and found it devoid of a day-to-day account, contained overwriting that obscured the precise delay, and failed to provide a plausible explanation for the 33-day delay claimed. The Tribunal emphasized the statutory 45-day limit and the requirement to satisfy the Court of reasonable grounds for any delay within that period. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a condonation application does not furnish a plausible, sufficiently detailed explanation of delay (including day-to-day reckoning or convincing justification), the Appellate Tribunal may dismiss the appeal as time-barred; absence of such explanation is a ground for refusing condonation. This ruling is operative and deterministic of the appeal's fate in the present judgment. Observations about the respondent's conduct (e.g., alleged malicious contempt filings) were noted in the condonation petition but were insufficient to merit condonation; such allegations were not accepted as excusing delay and are obiter to the extent they do not form the basis of the dismissal. Conclusions: The appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation because the condonation application failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Tribunal held that, in the absence of plausible reasons and adequate particulars, it would not exercise discretion to condone the 33-day delay beyond the limitation period. Consequently, the impugned NCLT order was left intact by reason of the appeal's dismissal for delay. Issue 3 - Validity and scope of interim directions: permitting EOGM subject to exclusion of a specified agenda item and maintenance of status quo Legal framework: NCLT has power to pass interim or protective orders to preserve parties' rights pending adjudication of petitions under Chapters on oppression and mismanagement; such interim reliefs may include prohibiting particular actions at meetings and directing maintenance of status quo. Precedent treatment: No precedents were invoked; the impugned order reflects exercise of inherent and statutory interim powers to balance competing interests pending fuller adjudication. Interpretation and reasoning: The impugned NCLT order authorized the company to hold an EOGM but barred consideration of the specific agenda item proposing removal of a director and directed status quo in the interim. The Appellate Tribunal's scrutiny of the appeal focused on limitation; it did not set aside or modify the interim directions. The Tribunal's dismissal on limitation effectively permitted the NCLT's interim order to remain operative unless and until the NCLT or a competent forum reconsiders it on merits. Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter - because the Appellate Tribunal did not assess the substantive appropriateness of the interim directions, its silence as to their correctness is not a binding ratio. However, by declining to admit the appeal, the Tribunal treated the interim order as continuing in effect. Conclusions: The NCLT's interim directions (allowing the EOGM except exclusion of the specified agenda item and directing status quo) remain unaltered by the appeal due to dismissal on limitation grounds. No appellate determination was made on the merits of those interim measures. Cross-references The Tribunal's dismissal for want of limitation (Issue 2) is dispositive of the appeal and precluded appellate resolution of the jurisdictional locus question (Issue 1) and the substantive correctness of the interim directions (Issue 3); accordingly, findings on Issues 1 and 3 are either obiter or left undecided.