P. Venugopal vs The Registrar Of Companies & Anr.

The Appellant has preferred the instant Appeal in the capacity of being the shareholder of M/s. Sri Sai Pardha Real Estates Private Limited, a company which stood incorporated and registered with the Registrar of Companies. As per the records of the case, the company was not able to submit its financial statement for the financial year 1994-1995 and consequently its name was struck off from the Register of Companies by an order that was passed on 02.07.2018 by Registrar of Companies. Consequent to this, the proceedings were carried by the Appellant before the Learned Adjudicating Authority as against the order of Registrar of Companies under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, which has been rejected by the impugned order.

This would be one of the most unfortunate cases that we have been called upon to deal with.

This Company Appeal was argued quite extensively by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant. When the Respondents were called upon to address the Company Appeal, the intervenor raised a preliminary objection that the instant Company Appeal is barred by limitation for the reason that the impugned order under challenge is that of 15.06.2022, and according to the records available with the Registry, the Company Appeal was e-filed on 07.09.2023, and that since the Appeal has been preferred by invoking the provisions contained under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, the Appeal would be barred by limitation as contemplated under Sub-Section (3) of Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, which mandated that the Appeal under Section 421 shall be filed within 45 days from the date on which the copy of the order is made available to the person aggrieved, which can be extended by this Appellate Tribunal for a further period not exceeding 45 days. Apparently, it seems to be correct also, because the instant appeal as against the order of 15.06.2022, has been filed only on 07.09.2023, which would apparently render the appeal barred by limitation since having been preferred beyond the condonable period.

The Appellant has contended that if the dates and events as it has been provided by the Appellant, is taken into consideration, it can be seen that the Appeal has been filed within the said time limit. To support his case, he has referred to two diary numbers, which have been given under the dates and events column provided by the Appellant, which is extracted hereunder: -

He has claimed that he has actually filed the Appeal on 15.07.2022 and refiled the same on 07.09.2023 and therefore the Appeal has been filed in time. On examination of the records, it is found that as against the e-filing number No.9805130/01432/2022, which is claimed by the Appellant to be the original e-filing number, no records are available with the NIC. The same was also crosschecked with NIC data. Further, the transaction ID 1307220008121 of Bharatkosh portal which gives the details of payment done for filing the appeal, corresponds with the E-filing No.9805130/01972/2023, which pertains to 07.09.2023. In that eventuality, we will have to take the e-filing date as to be 07.09.2023, owing to the information which we have gathered from the IT Section and upon its comparison with the transaction ID of Bharatkosh.

Besides that, if we look into the impugned order, and the notings made therein at its footnote, it shows that the order was rendered on 15.06.2022, and the same was brought in public domain on 27.06.2022. Hence, filing of an appeal on 07.09.2023 would be barred by limitation since being beyond the period prescribed under Sub-Section (3) of Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013. Hence, the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.22/2024 would stand dismissed on this limited ground only.