2025 (3) TMI 1257

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....shnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR For the Respondent : Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Ms. Mani Munjal, Adv. Mr. Aadya Jha, Adv. Mr. Vaishnav Kirti Singh, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. On 11th December, 2018, an application was filed under Section 252(3) o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the NCLAT in the impugned judgment has taken an erroneous view that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, "the Limitation Act") cannot be applied for excluding the period spent for prosecuting the review petition. Her submission is that, in fact, while rejecting the review petition, the NCLT held that the review petitio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ister of the Companies was filed after a lapse of four months from the date on which it was struck out. The review petition was filed five months after the NCLT dismissed the application. After the review petition was dismissed, it took more than one year for the appellant to prefer an appeal before the NCLAT. There is no justification for this delay of five months and one year respectively. 5.....