2019 (2) TMI 1502

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....copy of the order dated 12.8.2014 was received by them on 25.8.2014. The appeal has been filed on 24.12.2014. There is delay of 60 days beyond the period of 60 days to file the present appeal. 3. In the application it is pleaded that settlement talks were going on between the parties and an attempt was made to resolve the matter. As the impugned order directed the appellants to pay the price of the shares of the respondent and also directed the respondent to pay liability of the company, it could be done after liquidating the company. Based on this the present application for condonation of delay has been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that the present appeal has been filed against an order dated 12.8.20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mpugned order dated 12.08.2014 was received by him on or before 25.08.2014. In case, copy of the order was received after 25.08.2014, the delay in filing the appeal would not be condonable. Reference in this context may be had to section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, which reads as follows: "10.F. Appeals against the order 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 filing the appea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot only excludes the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act but also other sections from Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive). Thus, Section 14 also stands excluded from its application for purposes of either condoning the delay or exclusion of the period on the ground envisaged therein notwithstanding existence of sufficient cause. Thus, even if the period spent before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court constitutes sufficient cause for extension of period under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, these sections cannot be applied de hors proviso to Section 10F to extend the limitation beyond sixty days in addition to the original period of sixty days (total 120 days) for filing an appeal as proviso to Section 10F does not pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f court. It is pleaded that settlement talks between the parties ultimately failed due to the greed of respondent No.2 and hence, the appellant could not file the appeal within the statutory period. Hence, condonation of delay is sought. As noted, the grounds so stated inspire no confidence and the delay cannot be condoned on the said grounds. 10. I may also note that the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Yaswant Singh Negi (supra) held as follows:- "25. Different situations may arise in relation to review petitions filed before a court or tribunal. 25.1. One of the situations could be where the review application is allowed, the decree or order passed by the court or tribunal is vacated and the (sic) appeal/proce....