TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 773
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Companies Act, being Union of India v. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. [2009] 148 Comp. Cas. 252 1 (CLB - New Delhi), suspended the board of directors of Satyam and authorised the Government of India to constitute a fresh board with not more than ten persons as directors. It appears, pursuant thereto, the Central Government constituted a fresh board of directors with six persons as directors to manage the affairs of Satyam. Newly constituted board took several steps for financial revival of Satyam. As the board felt that funds are to be infused to avoid erosion of the company's value, it decided to increase the authorised equity capital from Rs. 160 crores to Rs. 280 crores to be allotted on a preferential basis to a strategic investor. Therefore, another application, being Company Application No. 84 of 2009 was moved by the Union of India praying the Company Law Board to authorise the board to induct strategic investor(s), exempt the company from obtaining the approval of the shareholders to increase the authorised capital and also make preferential allotments. The Company Law Board considered the matter and passed orders on 19-2-2009 and authorised the board of Satyam to pass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us pointed out by the learned Solicitor General that when the order was passed on 19-2-2009, the appeal filed with delay without showing sufficient cause cannot be entertained. His next submission is that the Limitation Act has no application to appeals filed under section 10F of the Companies Act. 6. Whether this court in exercise of its powers under second proviso to section 10F of the Companies Act can condone the delay of 43 days in filing the appeal by excluding the period during which the application was pursuing remedy in the Delhi High Court as contemplated under section 5 read with section 14 of the Limitation Act? This is the only question that needs to be addressed in this application. Section 10F of the Companies Act reads as below :- "10F. Appeals against the orders of the Company Law Board.-Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Company Law Board may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Company Law Board to him on any question of law arising out of such order : Provided that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from fili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, 1908, has clearly no application in the present case, since that Act is repealed by the Limitation Act, 1963, which came into force with effect from January 1, 1964 and the present case must, therefore, be decided by reference to the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963." 9. In Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. [2001] 8 SCC 470, the question which arose for determination was whether the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable to an application challenging an award. The question was answered holding that when special limitation for the purpose of appeal is prescribed, the power of the court under section 5 of the Limitation Act stands curtailed and excluded. After referring to Vidyacharan Shukla v. Khubchand Baghel AIR 1964 SC 1099, the Apex Court laid down as follows (page 474 of [2001] 8 SCC) :- "This decision recognises that it is not essential for the special or local law to, in terms, exclude the provisions of the Limitation Act. It is sufficient if on a consideration of the language of its provisions relating to limitation, the intention to exclude can be necessarily implied. As has been said in Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Delhi High Court could be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act. After elaborate consideration of the matter, it was held (page 452 of 142 Comp. Cas.) :- "As a matter of fact, the appellant seems to have pursued his remedy before the hon'ble Delhi High Court in a callous and negligent manner. It was not that the question of jurisdiction was raised in routine, the objection of jurisdiction of the hon'ble Delhi High Court was based upon a judgment of the Apex Court in a similar matter and the judgment in case of Stridewell Leathers (P.) Ltd. v. Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages (P.) Ltd. [1993] 3 Comp. LJ 405; [1994] 79 Comp. Cas. 139; AIR 1994 SC 158, was also noticed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the interlocutory order dated February 19, 2007, even then the appellant chose to continue with the appeal till April 16, 2007. This conduct of the appellant is sufficient to deny him the benefit of section 14 as he has not pursued the remedy with due diligence but in a callous and negligent manner, even if it is presumed that his initial approach was due to ignorance of law. Even otherwise, the appellant cannot claim the benefit of section 14, he having filed the appeal b....