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>Appeal Dismissed Due to Delay in Filing Under Companies Act</h1> <h3>P. Ram Bhoopal & Ors. Versus Pragnya Riverbridge Developers Ltd. & Ors.</h3> P. Ram Bhoopal & Ors. Versus Pragnya Riverbridge Developers Ltd. & Ors. - Tmi Issues:- Appeal against rejection of application under Sections 397, 398, and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956.- Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal rejecting the application under Sections 397, 398, and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956. The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period, and an application for condonation of delay was submitted along with the appeal.2. The appellants provided reasons for the delay, citing the unexpected death of appellant No. 1's uncle, causing distress and turmoil. Appellant No. 1, who was the authorized representative, had to fulfill family obligations, leading to a delay in preparing and filing the appeal. Appellant No. 2 eventually filed the appeal after understanding the case intricacies, contributing to the delay.3. The relevant provision, Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, allows for a 45-day period to file an appeal, extendable by an additional 45 days if sufficient cause is demonstrated. The appeal in this case was filed well beyond the initial 45-day period, with the defect being pointed out and rectified later.4. Rule 26 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 outlines the procedure for filing appeals and rectifying defects. The rule mandates rectification of mistakes before filing an appeal. In this case, the appeal was filed beyond the extended period of 90 days, leaving no jurisdiction for condonation of the delay.5. The Appellate Tribunal found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory. The appellants failed to provide a satisfactory account of their actions during the period between the order date and the uncle's death, as well as the subsequent period. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.6. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and providing valid reasons for seeking condonation of delay. The decision was based on the failure to provide a convincing explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, ultimately leading to its dismissal without costs.
TaxTMI 