TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e next 45 days would require sufficient cause to be shown. This Appellate tribunal has no power to condone beyond this second slab of time. In the present matter the appeal has been presented much beyond the period of 90 days and I am not required to go into the question whether there was sufficient cause for delay. The appeal is clearly time barred and is required to be dismissed on this ground itself. Also, no prima facie case is made out by the appellant that he has good case and grounds for setting aside ex parte orders. The appeal is dismissed on the ground of same being time barred. - Company Appeal(AT) No. 263 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 8-1-2019 - Justice A.I.S. Cheema) Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Mr. Sriram. P, Mr. Sarath S. Janardanan, Advocates. For the Respondents : Ms Malavika Jayanth and Mr. Sureshan. P, Advocates. JUDGEMENT This appeal is filed by original Respondent No.4 of TCP No.29/2016 (C.P. No.78 of 2008) which was before the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai (NCLT in short) and which was filed by the present respondents (original petitioners) complaining of oppression and mismanagement. The company concern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within that period. Proviso of Section 421 of the Act are quite clear. After the first 45 days which is period given to file the appeal, the next 45 days would require sufficient cause to be shown. This Appellate tribunal has no power to condone beyond this second slab of time. In the present matter the appeal has been presented much beyond the period of 90 days and I am not required to go into the question whether there was sufficient cause for delay. The appeal is clearly time barred and is required to be dismissed on this ground itself. 4. However, before passing the dismissal order, I am recording my views and findings with regard to the grounds raised in the appeal in support of which submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the parties, in case at any future point of time it becomes necessary to have the views of this Appellate Tribunal. 5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the original Respondent No.4 (appellant) had been proceeded against ex parte on 19.9.2016 as the impugned order itself shows. The counsel argued that the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n considering the arguments of the learned counsel for appellant and also the respondent is that the appellant except for taking a vague stand in pleading is not disclosing anything other than making oral submission without material that he had entrusted his papers to an Advocate, name of which also he does not want to disclose and does not want to disclose any action taken to get back the papers and with such vague stand the appellant is trying to make me believe that he has got grounds to raise and documents to show in his favour which also he will disclose only in NCLT, and so I should set aside the impugned order. I find that the appellant does not make out any real ground which would justify setting aside of the ex parte proceeding. The impugned order shows that it was a matter which was pending earlier before Company Law Board and then before the NCLT from 2008 till 2018 when the impugned order was passed. There is no material to show that in such period of almost a decade the appellant made any effort to bring on record of NCLT what case he wants to put up or that he be give a chance. It is very easy to blame an Advocate (whose name is also not disclosed) and saying that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tern was ordered to be maintained till further orders. 8. I do not find any force in the arguments of the learned counsel for appellant that the impugned order should be set aside and chance be given to the appellant to go back to NCLT so as to raise grounds and filing documents (What are those documents? Even that is not disclosed) because the allegations are serious. The allegations were serious in the company petition itself. If the appellant had defence to make, nothing prevented him from contesting the petition which was pending for almost 10 years. Admittedly the appellant had taken over the Management of the company from erstwhile Directors and inspite of the impugned order this position is admittedly continuing. Having caught hold of the management of the company for so many years he is holding on. When the petition was filed he appeared and later failed to contest. He preferred to keep silent for almost a decade. When impugned order is passed he gets a copy and does not still take steps. When impugned order becomes final, he files a time barred appeal. He has no equity to stand on. I do not find that such appellant should be given any sympathy to protract and prolong ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
