TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Rejects Appeal Due to Insufficient Justification for 43-Day Delay Under Companies Act, 2013.</h1> <h3>Laly Joseph Versus Indo Asian News Channel Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.</h3> The tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay as the reasons provided by the appellant were deemed insufficient to justify the 43-day ... Seeking Condonation of Delay of 43 days in filing of the present Appeal - Sufficient cause for delay or not - HELD THAT:- In case of expiry of the statutory period of the 45 days, proviso to Section 421(3), further provides a period of 45 days for a litigant to file the Appeal after showing sufficient cause for not approaching the Court within the statutory period provided under Section 421(1) and can maintain the Appeal provided it is proved that he could not approach the Court within a prescribed time due to a sufficient cause. Hence, the sufficient cause is a Sine-Qua-Non for the purpose of entertaining an Application and granting Condonation of Delay in such cases - On considering the arguments of the Counsel for the Appellant and after perusal of the averments made in the Application, the considered opinion is that the reason given in the Application do not constitute sufficient cause because the Appellant had been seeking under unnecessary beliefs. The present Application is hereby dismissed. Issues involved:The appeal against the order to reject the report under Section 242(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 and the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.Issue 1: Application for Condonation of DelayThe appeal was filed after the prescribed period of 45 days, seeking condonation of delay of 43 days under Section 421(3) of the Act. The appellant believed that the appeal need not be filed against the order dated 23/02/2020 as it was merged with an interim order. However, it was later realized that a separate appeal needed to be filed. The appellant argued that the delay was not wanton and had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the original period. The tribunal found that the reasons given did not constitute sufficient cause as the appellant had been under unnecessary beliefs.Issue 2: Appeal against OrderThe appeal was filed against the order dated 23.02.2023, which dismissed the application to reject the report of the fourth respondent. The appellant had already filed appeals against an interim order and a final order in separate petitions. The present appeal was filed due to its independent cause of action. Section 421 of the Act provides for appeals from orders of the tribunal, allowing any person aggrieved by an order to prefer an appeal to the appellate tribunal within the prescribed period. The appellate tribunal may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period if satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the statutory period.Conclusion:The tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay, as the reasons given by the appellant were not considered sufficient cause. Consequently, the appeal, which was not duly constituted, was also dismissed. No costs were awarded in this matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
