AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 785
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....support of the petition that the respondent herein filed the petition before the CLB in CP No. 84 of 2007 and also filed two applications in CA Nos. 237 and 255 of 2007, seeking for interim directions for verifying the genuineness of the disputed signatures by the Forensic Department and to send the copies of certificates of posting to the postal department to verify whether the letters were sent on the date as mentioned. Out of the said two applications, one application in CA No. 255 of 2007 was withdrawn. The petitioner herein filed another application in CA No. 7 of 2008 praying to forward certain documents which were filed as annexures to the company petitions to verify the signatures in the stamp papers and also dates of signatures in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt, submitted that the petition seeking condonation of delay of 64 days is not maintainable. As per the section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'), an appeal against the order of the CLB should be filed within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision or order and if it could not be filed within the provided 60 days, it should be filed within another period of 60 days by showing sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the time. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision reported in Pawan Goel v. KMG Milk Food Ltd. [2008] 84 GLA 59/[2008] 2 Comp LJ 213/[2009] CLC 735 (P&H) and also relied on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court reported in Union of India v. Popular Construction ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8. The honourable Supreme Court, while deciding a question whether the provisions of the section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1953 are applicable to an application challenging the award under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, held as follows : '7. There is no dispute that the 1996 Act is a "special law" and that section 34 provides for a period of limitation different from that prescribed under the Limitation Act. The question then is such exclusion expressed in section 34 of the 1996 Act ? The relevant extract of section 34 reads : "34. Application for setting aside arbitral award. -.... (3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... above initial period of sixty days as prescribed under section 10F of the Act. 24. Even though, condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act is permissible without any limit provided the applicant is able to establish sufficient cause. It is settled law that once the court is convinced or satisfied regarding the existence of a sufficient cause, the length of a period becomes irrelevant. However, this proposition is attracted only if section 5 is applicable. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application in appeal under section 10F. The contention is based upon the provision of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act read with section 10F which, inter alia, provides th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roviso can be considered to be akin to section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the proviso imposes limitation for extension of time in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the expression used in section 10F being "further period not exceeding sixty days". It has been argued by Mr. Rawal, advocate, on behalf of the appellant that the Companies Act does not exclude the application of section 5 of the Limitation Act and notwithstanding the maximum period of sixty days for condoning the delay under proviso to section 10F, delay can further be condoned by virtue of section 5 read with section 14 of the Limitation Act on sufficient cause being shown. 26. With a view to consider and appreciate the arguments in its rig....