2026 (4) TMI 161

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The Registry in its report of 24.02.2026, has notified the following defects: "DEFECTS ; NUMBER OF DAYS DELAY IN RE- PRESENTING THE APPEAL HAS TO BE MENTIONED IN THE APPLICATIONS 2. NUMBER OF DAYS DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL HAS TO BE NOTED IN THE APPLICATION 3 INDEX SHEET HAS NOT FURNISHED PROPERLY 4. COUNSEL HAS TO SIGN IN DECLARATION FORM" 3. Major defect raised pertains to non-mentioning of the number of days of delay in filing of the company appeal, and in refiling the Appeal in the respective applications. Those defects may not be so vital to create any impediment for deciding the company appeal, because the Registry in its report has determined the number of days of delay and has given its defect sheet, reporting that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Court adding the interest and the gratuity dues. The record shows that the Applicant was paid the gratuity dues which he also acknowledged. We are in agreement with the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Liquidator that the Applicant wrongly calculated his date of retirement as 30.06.2022." 6. Though the above extract at the moment may not be necessary for the purposes of deciding the instant company appeal, when we are considering it, in the light of the pleadings raised by the Appellant himself with regards to the aspect of delay. 7. As far as the delay in refiling is concerned, the Registry has reported that there's a delay of 27 days in refiling. Having heard the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant on the delay condonation in ref....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al would be suffering from a delay of 57 days, as it has been reported by the Registry and the same would be barred by limitation. Besides that, the ground, which has be taken by the Appellant in para 2 of the supporting application for seeking condonation of delay, that itself doesn't seem to be justified to condone the delay beyond the upper limit prescribed after including condonable period under Section 61(2) of the Code. 12. Even the reason is not satisfactory, for the reason being that in the paragraph, it has been contended by the Appellant, that after the arguments of 17.11.2023, the judgment was reserved for orders on the same day, and the copy of the order was available on 05.01.2024 in IBA.No.1045&1169/(CHE)/2019. Alleging....