AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial):
The instant Company Appeal arises from the impugned order dated 20.04.2021, passed by the NCLT, Bangalore Bench, in CP No. 99/BB/2017. This Company Appeal is accompanied by IA No. 257/2025, wherein the Appellant has sought condonation of a delay of 471 days in refiling the Appeal.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant was heard on IA No. 257/2025, wherein condonation of a delay of 471 days in refiling the Appeal has been sought. Before venturing into the contents of the Application, certain relevant dates are required to be considered:
a. The impugned order was passed on 20.04.2021.
b. The Company Appeal was e-filed on 04.01.2022.
c. The Registry scrutinized the records on 08.02.2022.
The Appeal bearing Transitory No. 9805111/00038/2022 was found to be defective, and intimation of the said defects was sent to the Appellant on 08.02.2022. The defects were not rectified despite a number of intimations on the same was sent from the Registry. The Appeal was listed on 04.12.2024 under the heading 'Defective' and the Appellant was directed to cure the defect in 3 days by way of last opportunity.
The matter was again taken up on 20.02.2025, and after recording the statement of the Appellant’s counsel, the following order was passed by us :
The Registry has reported that the Appeal suffers from defects because the legal heirs of Appellant No. 1 have been brought on record, subsequent to the death of Appellant No.1 & Appellant No.2 without following due process. The question raised by the Registry is as to how the Appellant No.2(a) & (b) could be brought on record, for which the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that he has e-filed the Substitution Application on 07.02.2025 and physically the same has been filed on 12.02.2025. The Registry is directed to give a fresh report on the same. If the defects have been rectified and the Appeal is no more suffering from any defect, the Appeal will be listed as fresh.
Upon fresh scrutiny, it was found that from the institution of the Appeal (which is 04.01.2022) till its final re-filing on 07.02.2025, there have been significant delays in refiling of the Company Appeal in three different spells, as detailed below:
From 18.01.2022 to 02.02.2022 – 8 days.
From 08.02.2022 to 04.01.2023 – 354 days.
From 07.01.2025 to 07.02.2025 – 24 days.
The Appellants have filed two Interlocutory Applications, namely
IA No. 258/2025, seeking impleadment of the legal heirs of Appellant No. 1 & 2 and
IA No. 257/2025, seeking condonation of delay in refiling.
In the Application seeking condonation of delay in refiling, the Appellants are Shareholders in the Respondent No. 1 Company, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and repairing equipment used in connection with heating, cooling, and ventilation, and is part of the Durent Group comprising five companies, and that Appellant No. 1 was constrained to resign from the directorship of Respondent No. 1 company in 1998 after one of the group companies, namely DUSTVEN Private Ltd., failed to repay a substantial sum that Appellant No. 1 had advanced to the said company from his borrowings.
They have further submitted that the delay in re-filing of the Appeal is due to the fact that the Appellant No. 3 suffered from unprecedented medical complications, due to which the defects could not be rectified earlier. The said reasons have been detailed in paragraph 3(b) of the Application.
We observe that the reason stated in paragraph 3(b) of the delay condonation Application, namely, the medical complications of Appellant No. 3, on a stand-alone basis cannot be accepted as a ground for condoning a prolonged delay of 471 days as stated by the Appellant (which is otherwise computed by Registry as 386 days) owing to the fact that the Appeal involves seven Appellants, out of whom two were pre-deceased and five Appellants are still surviving and could have filed affidavits in support of the delay condonation Application. The same was not done, which itself demonstrates an apparent dereliction on the part of the Appellants in effectively pursuing the remedy of the present Appeal. Further, there is nothing on record to indicate the nature of the medical contingency suffered by Appellant No. 3 and to establish that such condition persisted for an extended period sufficient to justify a delay of 471 days.
The reason for delay, which has been given therein is not satisfactory and is not substantiated by bringing any document on record. Though it is a settled principle that, the issue of condonation of delay in refiling is the issue between the Tribunal and the Appellant, but yet when there is an inordinate delay in refiling it has to be considered based upon the genuine and logically established grounds for its condonation. In the instant case, the ground taken for seeking condonation of 471 days of delay is neither substantiated nor seems to be plausible. It is difficult to believe that Appellant No. 3 remained ill and his condition was so grievous that he couldn’t rectify the defect till 07.02.2025. Further, in the absence of any document being placed on record to support the aforesaid contention, the ground taken for seeking condonation 471 days of delay in refiling of the Appeal has to be held as 'not satisfactory'. Accordingly, the IA No. 257/2025 would stand rejected and as a consequence there to, the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 19/2025 would too stand dismissed.