TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In this case, there is a delay of 64 days in the result, the maintainability petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. - M.P. NO. 1 OF 2008 - - - Dated:- 14-7-2009 - T. SUNDANTHIRAM, J. S. Silambanan for the Petitioner. Veneet Subramani for the Respondent. ORDER 1. This is a petition filed seeking condonation of delay of 64 days in filing the civil miscellaneous appeal challenging the order passed by the Company Law Board ('CLB'), Chennai, in CA No. 7 of 2008 in CP No. 84 of 2007 dated 29th February, 2008. 2. This petition is filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the respondent herein filed the petition before the CLB i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed in the application filed by the petitioner herein in CA No. 7 of 2008, wherein originally the petitioner were interested in proceeding with the main company petitions itself but, as it was understood by the petitioner that it was not possible after due consideration, the petitioner preferred the appeal. The learned counsel submitted that since the CMA preferred by respondent in CMA No. 2801 of 2008 is pending before this court, the CMA filed by the petitioner should also be heard by condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, otherwise prejudice would be caused to the petitioner herein. 4. Mr. Vidyaraja, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the petition seeking condonation of delay of 64 days is not maint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not exceeding sixty days." 7. The above said provision prescribes the period of limitation of 60 days for preferring an appeal against the order of the CLB. The proviso under section 10F enables the party to prefer the appeal within a further period of 60 days by explaining to the satisfaction of the High Court that the appellant was prevented by a sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the period of limitation. The language under section 10F is explicit that if the limitation period of 60 days is over, then any further delay could be condoned by the High Court on being satisfied that there was sufficient cause, but such delay should not exceed 60 days. 8. The honourable Supreme Court, while deciding a question whether the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. To hold that the court could entertain an application to set aside the award beyond the extended period under the proviso, would render the phrase "but not thereafter" wholly otiose: No principle of interpretation would justify such a result.' 9. In the case reported in Pawan Goel ( supra ) also while dealing with the petition to condone the delay, in the appeal filed against the order passed by CLB, the court held as follows : '23. It may also consider the next question whether the appellant is entitled to seek condonation of delay under section 5 read with section 14 of the Limitation Act or the period of limitation can be extended beyond sixty days over and above initial period of sixty days as prescribed under section 10F of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll apply only insofar as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. 25. There is no dispute that the Companies Act, 1956, is a special law. Under the normal circumstances, the provisions of the Limitation Act will have application to all appeals and applications under the Companies Act, unless a different period of limitation is prescribed. As noticed herein above, the company law itself has prescribed a period of limitation for filing the appeal and also for condonation of delay. Hence, condonation of delay for filing the appeal beyond the prescribed period of limitation is by virtue of the proviso to section 10F. This proviso can be considered to be akin to section 5 of the Limitation Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... committing violence to the statute itself which is impermissible under law.' 10. In view of the above decision, and in view of the language used in section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, this court holds that an appeal against order of the CLB has to be filed within a period of 60 days from the date of the communication of the decision or an order and beyond that period the appeal could be filed with a petition to condone the delay within another 60 days and not beyond that period. In view of the proviso under section 10F of the Act, it is not possible for the High Court to condone the delay of more than 60 days in preferring the appeal. 11. In this case, there is a delay of 64 days. The learned senior counsel Mr. S. Silambanan, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
