Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2015 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 498 - HC - Companies LawCondonation of delay - Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Whether under Section 25 of SICA, the delay in filing the appeal to AAIFR can be condoned beyond the period of 60 days - Whether high court has power under Article 226 to condone the delay and remit the matter - Held that:- The combined reading of various provisions contained clearly points out that the legislature intended it to be a complete code by itself which alone should govern the several matters provided by it. Being a complete code by itself, the nature of remedy provided therein would be governed by the said Act. If, on an examination of the relevant sections, it is clear that the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 are necessarily excluded, then the benefits conferred therein cannot be called in aid to supplement the provisions of the Act. Wherever the special law does not exclude the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act,1963 by an express reference, it would nonetheless be open to the court to examine whether and to what extent, the nature of those provisions or the nature of the subject-matter and scheme of the special law exclude their operation. The power conferred under Articles 226/227 is designated to effectuate the law, to ensure that rule of law is enforced and the statutory authorities and other organs of the State act in accordance with law. It is not to be invoked whereby authorities are directed to act contrary to law. Wherever, the extent of condonable period is specifically prescribed by a statute, it would not be appropriate even under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution to entertain the writ petition so as to breach the express provision in the statute and act contrary to the mandate of the legislature. It is for the legislature to prescribe the limits or not to do so for condoning the delay. Exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India would amount to doing violence to the statutory provision and rendering the same otiose. Same views expressed in M/s Nitco Tiles Limited vs. Gujarat Ceramic Floor Tiles Mfg. Assn. And others [2005 (2) TMI 159 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] , Union of India and another vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited [1996 (5) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] , M/s Raj Chemicals vs. Union of India [2012 (3) TMI 307 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] , Sheetal Enterprises vs. Union of India [2005 (10) TMI 107 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY]. Having expounded the legal position, it may be noticed that there was delay of 354 days in filing the appeal by the appellant State before the Appellate authority. The appellate authority as well as the learned Single Judge had dismissed the appeal as time barred. The delay being beyond the condonable period prescribed in Section 25(1) of SICA, there is no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal. - Decided against the appellant.
|