TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1763
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Judicial ) And [ Jatindranath Swain ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Mr. Yogesh Kumar Jagia, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. P.R. Raman, Senior Advocate For Mr. Anupam Raghuraman, Advocate for R2 & R3 JUDGMENT ( Hybrid Mode ) Per : Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member ( Judicial ) The instant Company Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant, expressing his grievances being aggrieved as against the Impugned Order, as it has been rendered as back as on 27.09.2017, by the Learned Adjudicating Authority of Chennai Bench in TCP/110/2016 (CP/107/2012), which were the proceedings drawn under Section 111, 397, 398, 402 & 403 of the Companies Act, 1956, by Respondent Nos.2 & 3, in relation to the affairs of Respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....five days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within that period". In fact, if the proviso to Sub-Section (3) of Section 421 is taken into consideration for filing of principal Appeal, the limitation has been prescribed under Sub-Section(3) of Section 421 of the Companies Act, 1956, is 45 days, but an additional powers has been granted to the Appellate Tribunal, to entertain an Appeal beyond the period of 45 days as prescribed under proviso to Sub-Section (3) of Section 421 of the Companies Act, by granting an extension of yet another 45 days time from the date of expiring of limitation, as contemplated under Sub- Section (3) of Section 421 of the Companies Act. But the restrict....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bearing in the instant Appeal at this stage, particularly when it is under altogether a different complexion, when the Delay Condonation Application is being considered. On a simpliciter determination of the period of limitation the same would be expiring on 26.12.2017, but however admittedly no appeal was preferred within the aforesaid period. Knowledge is not a factor which can be taken as to be a rescue for Condonation of Delay, owing to the principles laid down by the Principal Bench, in the Judgment reported in 2024 SCC Online NCLAT 383, Deepak Dahyalal Vs Steel Resources and Another, Para 16, which is extracted hereunder: - "16. A clear distinction has been drawn in the Nagarajan judgment supra that unlike Section 421(3) o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Appellant at least on 06.08.2024, then, too he ought to have applied for procuring the Certified Copy of an Impugned Order in order to prefer an Appeal within the prescribed period of limitation prescribed under the statute, but the same has not been done; rather to the contrary, the Application for getting the Certified Copy was preferred on 25.10.2024 i.e., 80 days of his knowledge of order on 06.08.2024. Under the given legal precedents, at least the application for procuring the Certified Copy of the order was required to be preferred within the principal period of limitation prescribed under law for preference of an Appeal. Admittedly, that was not done in the instant case; the application for procuring the Certified Copy was filed o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the status of the proceedings and to file Appeal within the stipulated time. But now there happens to be about 2659 days of delay i.e., with effect from the year 2017 to 2025 from the date of impugned order to the date of filing the Appeal. That cannot be permitted to be exonerated for granting an extension of limitation which is far beyond the scope as subscribed under the statute. Thus, the alleged prayer that, there happens to be a delay of 25 days as prayed for by the Appellant in his Application being IA No.604/2025, is not acceptable by us because the limitation cannot be permitted to be calculated from date of receipt of Certified Copy and it has to be determined from 27.09.2017, because the Certified Copy of the Order itself was not....