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 - Importance of Adhering to Time Limits</h1> <h3>Rohan Packaging Products Ltd., Rajendra Bhate, Mahendra Bhate And Siddhartha Bhate Versus Lakhmichand Gidwani, Mahesh Gidwani, Anil Hirani, Shyamlal Khatri, Jagdish Ghumara Chartered Accountant, Harsh Finance and Trading Pvt. Ltd., Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi, Alpesh Modi, Mr. Rajesh Nariya, Mr. Ganesh Patil And Mr. Yashwant Kagale</h3> Rohan Packaging Products Ltd., Rajendra Bhate, Mahendra Bhate And Siddhartha Bhate Versus Lakhmichand Gidwani, Mahesh Gidwani, Anil Hirani, Shyamlal ... Issues:1. Calculation of limitation period for filing an appeal against an order of the National Company Law Tribunal.2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.3. Interpretation of Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 regarding the time limit for filing an appeal.4. Application of relevant case law in determining the condonation of delay.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against an Impugned Order dated 14.08.2017 by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The Appellants argued that the delay in filing the appeal should be calculated from the Corrigendum Order dated 1st January, 2018, while the Respondents contended that the delay exceeded the permissible limit of 45 days as per Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013.2. The Appellants sought condonation of the 97-day delay in filing the appeal, attributing the delay to the incorrect marking of the Interlocutory Application number in the original Order. The Respondents opposed the delay condonation, emphasizing that the Appellants were aware of the Impugned Order but delayed taking action, rendering the appeal time-barred.3. Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 stipulates a 45-day period for filing an appeal from the date the Tribunal's order is made available to the aggrieved party. The Appellate Tribunal can extend this period by an additional 45 days if sufficient cause is shown. Reference was made to a Supreme Court judgment (Civil Appeal No. 684 of 2018) to support the argument that the Tribunal cannot condone a delay beyond the prescribed limit.4. The Tribunal examined the timeline of events, noting that the certified copy of the Impugned Order was obtained on 10th October, 2017, and the Corrigendum Order rectifying the error was issued on 1st January, 2018. Despite the Appellants' argument that the delay should be calculated from the Corrigendum Order, the Tribunal held that the appeal was time-barred, as it was filed after 100 days from the date of the original Impugned Order. The Tribunal rejected the condonation of delay application and dismissed the appeal as time-barred, in line with the provisions of Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 and relevant case law.Conclusion:The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as time-barred, refusing to condone the delay of 97 days in filing the appeal against the Impugned Order dated 14.08.2017. The Tribunal's decision was based on a strict interpretation of the statutory provisions governing the time limit for filing appeals and the absence of sufficient cause to warrant an extension beyond the prescribed period.
TaxTMI 