Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + AT Companies Law - 2023 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 752 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAICondonation of delay in both re-filing and filing of the Appeal - Notice was never received by the Applicant / Appellant herein - ex-parte Order was passed on merits. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant / Appellant that having been set ex-parte before the Adjudicating Authority, they were unaware of the Order till 03/10/2022 when the IRP had sent communication of the same, the Appeal could not be filed within the statutory limit of 30 days, and there was a delay of 15 days from the date of the Impugned Order. HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ESHA BHATTACHARJEE VERSUS MANAGING COMMITTEE OF RAGHUNATHPUR NAFAR ACADEMY AND OTHERS [2015 (1) TMI 1053 - SUPREME COURT] has clearly laid down that an Application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with, in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective - In the instant Case, it is seen that there is an inordinate delay in re-filing also. As per the Report of the Registry, defects were intimated and the file was returned on 07/12/2022 but the Applicant had refiled the same only on 31/03/2023 with a delay of 115 days. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant / Appellant that the delay is only 85 days is incorrect. Be that as it may, there is no explanation for this delay except for stating that ‘there was a communication gap between the Clerk and the Registry on account of the wedding of the clerk coupled with technical difficulty associated with filing and tracking in the e-filing portal’. We do not find this explanation ‘a sufficient cause’ and this Tribunal is of the view that the reason cited are not ‘adequate’ to condone the inordinate delay of 115 days in refiling. This Tribunal is of the earnest view that despite service of ‘Notice’ and two paper publications as noted by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ the Applicants / Appellants have not chosen to appear before the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ and now cannot state that they were unaware of the Order, specifically having regard to the fact that two of the addresses to whom the ‘Notices’ were returned, unserved are one and the same given in the Memo of Parties in the Appeal. This Tribunal is not satisfied with the explanation furnished and therefore, the Applications seeking condonation of delay in refiling as well as the delay in filing of the Appeal are dismissed.
|