AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
This Company Appeal is accompanied with an IA No. 381/2024, seeking Condonation of Delay of 15 days, which has chanced in preferring this Company Appeal, as against the Impugned Order dated 01.03.2024, by virtue of which the Learned Adjudicating Authority while holding that the Appellant to be guilty of committing a willful contempt of the Order dated 09.10.2022, has called upon him to address on the contempt on the issue of sentence to be imposed on him.
The reasons for delay as explained in Para III of Delay Condonation Application is that the Appellant earlier could not Appear before this Tribunal because of the fact that he has some elderly ailing persons in the family, who was to be taken care of due to ailment and hospitalization.
This affidavit filed in support of the Delay Condonation Application contains a Verification Clause. The verification of the fact of ailment of the family member of the appellant has not been specifically verified in the Verification Clause, whether it is based on “personal knowledge” or based on “records” rather has been verified to be based on the legal advice.
In extension of this argument to justify the relevant verification clause mentioned in file in support of the Delay Condonation Application. the Learned Counsel argues that in the light of the provisions contained under the Rule 31, the Verification Clause of the affidavit has been prescribed under the code in accordance with form as provided in NCLAT Rules too.
The argument extended by the Appellant’s Counsel seeking shelter to the format of NCLAT-II with regard to the Interlocutory Application as provided under Rule 31, a logical implication has to be given to the format of the affidavit if the verification clause is considered which is extracted hereunder:
“I……………(Name of the applicant)S/o.W/o.D/o.(indicate any one, as the case may be)…………age……..working as………….in the office of……….resident of ……………do hereby verify that the contents of the paras……….to……….are true to my personal knowledge/derived from official record and para……..to…….are believed to be true on legal advice and that I have not suppressed any material facts.”
It provides that there are 3 different heads under which the respective paragraphs of the affidavit are to be shown which are “personal knowledge”, “official records” and “legal advice”. The verification clause does not exclusively provide that all the affidavits have to be sworn based on the legal advice as argued those who interpretation given by the appellant’s Counsel is not accepted by this Tribunal.
The Tribunal is of the opinion that, the form itself cannot be read as a sustainable provision of law, but rather it only qualifies the procedure under which the provisions of Rule 31 is to be complied with. Even the verification Clause as prescribed under the Form framed under Rule 31, if it is taken into consideration it contains of the 3 Clauses, “personal knowledge”, “official record” as well as “legal advice”, which are the facts which are required to be supplied with by the Applicant/Deponent to the Affidavit, which would be based on particular facts of the case, which has not been done in the Instant Case. Rather it’s a very sketchy verification. Hence, the reason given in the Delay Condonation Application verified by an incomplete and under the wrong clause the Affidavit by the Deponent is not acceptable by this Tribunal, thus the Delay which has filed along with the Company Appeal would hereby stand rejected. Consequently, the Company Appeal too would stand dismissed. All the connected Interlocutory Applications will also stand dismissed.